Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Re: WSJ...was Do you still keep subscription of microfilms of New York Times and Wall Street J. ? Pamela Contakos 16 Nov 2006 14:06 UTC

When we cancelled the majority of our microfiche subscriptions a few years ago I gave most of the microfiche away to any library who wanted them and was willing to pay postage for them. We are not a research library so we didn't feel the need to keep large back run of microfiche and patrons hated to use the microfiche anyway. We haven't had any requests for items that were in the microfiche so it seems to have been a good decision. If we did get any requests we could fill them through interlibrary loan or document delivery. The only one I did keep was the New York Times and we have had numerous discussions about whether we should keep it or not. For now, it's still here.

Pamela Contakos
Assistant Director
Donald B. Watt Library
School for International Training
Brattleboro, VT 05301

On 11/15/2006 3:35 PM, Steven Higaki <Steven.Higaki@SJSU.EDU> wrote:
>As a related question, when libraries obtain full text online access
>serial titles and cancel their microfilm subscriptions--what are
>doing with their microfilm runs?  Are the microfilm being retained
>or are
>they being discarded?  And what is the rationale for the decision
>retain or discard?
>Steven Higaki
>Martin Luther King, Jr. Library
>San Jose State University
>One Washington Square
>San Jose, CA  95192-0028
>Steve Oberg <steve@OBERGS.NET>
>Sent by: "SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum"
>11/15/2006 11:41 AM
>Please respond to
>"SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum" <SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU>
>Re: [SERIALST] WSJ...was Do you still keep subscription of microfilms
>New York Times and Wall Street J. ?
>> We are currently considering cancelling our WSJ microfilm subscription
>> due to high cost and little or no use.
>> ProQuest offers WSJ online with "comprehensive coverage back to
>> It is possible you could set up a trial of the product to determine
>> it would fit your needs.  I would be curious to know the satisfaction
>> level for those who subscribe to this product.
>When at Taylor University (part of the same consortium -- PALNI --
>your institution) we signed up for ProQuest's offerings for the NY
>Times along with a trial for WSJ.  ProQuest offers the Historical
>Newspapers piece for many major U.S. newspapers.  By definition these
>databases go back to the beginning (e.g. NY Times goes back to 1851,
>when it started).  We made the decision to subscribe to the NY Times
>backfile (via ProQuest Historical Newspapers, 1851 to approx. 3-5
>years past as a rolling wall) -- including full text and images --
>well as ProQuest's current NY Times database which goes from 2001
>the present and is text only.  This is all a bit complicated but
>that time, anyway, this is how it worked.  We were able to pay for
>this access to both the current and historical versions by cancelling
>our microfilm subscription for the NY Times.  The cost was about
>equal.  We were very happy with this decision and faculty and students
>were impressed with the increased access and ease of use.  As a
>consequence, it became a popular resource.
>We wanted to do the same for WSJ but just couldn't afford it at the
>time without having additional funds.
>If I were in a similar situation again, I'd do the same thing in
>heartbeat (ditch the microfilm to pay for better, fuller online
>access).  The split in terms of content and how it is presented is
>challenge for users to understand when it comes to searching the
>Times.  Users expect to have full text and images and in one database,
>not two.  I think ProQuest allows you the capability to do a combined
>search but even so, it is not as intuitive as it could be for users,
>in my opinion.  So that's one downside.  Another downside was that
>to the Tasini decision, missing articles in the online version for
>NY Times weren't available whereas they were available in the
>microfilm copy.
>One other thing:  ProQuest at the time also offered the ability to
>purchase perpetual access to a subset of the Historical Newspapers
>version for each newspaper.  I think the date range covered by that
>was 1851 to the early 1920s.  The limitation for more recent content
>was simply due to copyright, I think.  Here again, we would have
>preferred to be able to purchase this because the NY Times is such
>high demand resource especially for undergraduates.  But it was pretty
>expensive.  Here is where a consortial approach might be useful.
>Steve Oberg
>Family Man Librarian