Most public or university libraries that I’ve used offer an option to renew or extend loans: Before the loan period expires, you can opt for an extension - either in person at the library desk or through an online system where you can log in to your account. The renewal, of course, gives you an additional period during which you can keep the books you’ve borrowed.
What’s the point of that? I mean, obviously, the point of renewing a loan is so you can keep the books. But what’s in it for the library to offer, say, one-week loan periods renewable once for another week, as opposed to stipulating a non-renewable two-week loan period to begin with?
I have two theories that might explain it:
It increases the percentage of users who return books late (because they forget to get an extension), so the scheme of renewable loans as opposed to longer non-renewable loans increases income to the library in the form of fines for overdue books, even where the renewal is free of charge. Doesn’t sound very plausible to me since government or university-run libraries typically do not operate for profit.
It puts more pressure on users to return books early: A user who gets a one-week loan is, for a start, expected to return the books within a week, even if there’s an option for extension. A user with a non-renewable two-week loan period might be more inclined to keep the book throughout all or most of this time. Doesn’t sound very plausible either since even in the two-week scenario, borrowers are always free to return books before the expiry of that period.
Any other ideas, or even dopers who work, or have worked, as librarians and can share some knowledge?
I don’t think you’re allowed to renew a book that another patron has placed a request for. So by offering shorter terms with renewals, it gives others a chance to get it, and doesn’t let you hog popular books (but they don’t care if you hog unpopular ones).
What Chronos said. My wife is doing a college course and there are never enough books to go around. She can renew online, but not if someone else has reserved it.
I think it cynical to think that it is a ploy to increase revenue. The fines are there to encourage prompt return. At my wife’s college, too many late returns would lose some privileges, like having the total number of books at a time restricted.
This is correct in my local library system (Portland, OR). You can renew a book up to 3 times, I believe, unless there is a hold on it in which case you cannot renew it at all.
I don’t know what the reasoning is behind only renewing it 3 times, though, since if nobody else has a hold on it you could return it and check it out again once its reshelved. Probably helps to keep people from losing the book or it entering the user’s “personal collection.”
I have no inside knowledge, but I’ll bet this is the main reason.
Also, having a shorter but renewable borrow period means that, if you’re keeping the book for more than (say) one week, it’s (theoretically) because you actually need or intend to use the book that long, not just because there’s been no reason to return it yet.
some university libraries will not only prevent you from renewing a book that has a hold on it they might recall it if you have renewed it; i.e. there might be a month borrowing period but you might be notified and required to bring it in within a week if you have renewed it.
I agree. In fact my public library sends you an email a few days before your books are due to remind you, and with a link letting you renew them (assuming they are not on anyone’s hold list.) Hardly shows a desire to make money.
This is the same for the New York Public Library. If you request a renewal on the library’s computer system (online or in the library), it will either grant the renewal or tell you that the renewal is denied because someone else has a hold on the book (or you’ve already renewed it three times before).
I’m a librarian and have worked in libraries for going on 25 years.
The answer to why allow renewals is, as many people have already said: to give you more time with the item if no one else is asking for it.
Every library decides what a reasonable loan period for their materials is, then they decide if renewals are allowed on those materials and if so, how many renewals. It’s about striking a balance between giving people enough time to use the materials they check out and getting those materials into the hands of the next person who wants to use it in a timely manner. In my system, almost everything checks out for three weeks and can be renewed twice.
None of it has anything to do with librarians sitting around in in the break room rubbing their hands together over the massive haul of fines they’re about to take in. Fines are, by and large, a rather small portion of most libraries revenue.
We just went from three renewals to five a few years ago for that reason - why not let people have it longer? But if somebody’s waiting for it you have to bring it back. Seems fair to me.
Same in Queens- except the system just marks that item as non-renewable instead of allowing me to even request the renewal.
Another reason for fairly short lending periods- I think the initial lending period is three weeks and then I can renew three times for a total of twelve weeks. If there was a single 12 week period, I bet lot of people would be done with the books after three weeks ( or four ...) but just not feel any urgency to return them until the due date.
I was shocked recently to find out the Chicago Public Library system allows up to 15 renewals per item, and the loan period is three weeks! When I was a kid, I seem to remember something like two or possibly three renewals.
One thing that has changed with libraries is more and more people are doing searches on the library’s computer catalog and reserving things. Mrs. FtG regularly adds things to her list online, sometimes waiting months before she gets to the top of the list. She picks up 4-6 held books a week and hardly ever gets one off the shelves. (This also allows libraries to order fewer copies of new bestsellers since fewer people are coming in and asking for them, instead just waiting their turn.)
So it isn’t so much a problem if someone is browsing the stacks and not seeing a book they might like because someone has checked it out and renewed it several times.
Popular books: short time. No longer (or never) popular books: long time. With a simple algorithm to tell the difference.
Right, back in the days before computers were so ubiquitous, it made sense to limit the number of renewals: A lot of people decided what books they wanted by just walking down the stacks and looking at them. In that case, you have to get the book back on the shelf, or the other patrons would never even realize they want them. But now that that’s less common, there’s less of a need for limits (though some still do browse that way, so having a long limit still makes more sense than no limit at all).
I worked in a research library for 29 years. We circulated a small number of books, but these were expensive volumes, and we had to shorten the loan periods,particularly when the books were new and popular, so that borrowers didn’t monopolize them.
We couldn’t charge fines as the library is a government agency, so we had to rely on short loan periods and lots of polite reminders to get materials back.
Occasionally our borrowers lost or refused to return books so they were billed. I believe most public libraries also do this.
In response to some of the questions about why unlimited renewals are allowed, I think the short answer is, because advanced computerized library systems and web interfaces that allow borrowers to quickly renew items are so efficient, and do not require engaging a library employee.
Over the past 10 years, our borrowers use more and more online resources such as databases and e-books, so the pressure on physical collections is much less.
In any case, as another poster said, fines are not a significant source of revenue and neither are they intended to be punitive.
Simply to discourage people from keeping a book for 6 weeks routinely, but letting them do so if they request it. It creates fairness to the person who needs to take longer to read a book, but also fair to people who might want to find the book on the shelf.