<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Library Journal&#8217;s Star Libraries &#8211; show me the data</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.librarian.net/stax/2699/library-journals-star-libraries-show-me-the-data/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.librarian.net/stax/2699/library-journals-star-libraries-show-me-the-data/</link>
	<description>putting the rarin back in librarian since 1999</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:14:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Golrick</title>
		<link>http://www.librarian.net/stax/2699/library-journals-star-libraries-show-me-the-data/comment-page-1/#comment-124001</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Golrick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:08:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.librarian.net/?p=2699#comment-124001</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m behind in my blog reading, so apologies there. However, one of the things on my list here in my new job is to analyze the LJ rankings and Tom Hennen&#039;s rankings -- both of which use the same underlying data!

I find it annoying that LJ is touting this list so much, when I do not think it is significantly different than Hennen&#039;s (which appears in American Libraries). I am further annoyed that they call it a 2009 list when it is based on 2006 fiscal year data which was released by IMLS (www.imls.gov) in December 2008. Stay tuned!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m behind in my blog reading, so apologies there. However, one of the things on my list here in my new job is to analyze the LJ rankings and Tom Hennen&#8217;s rankings &#8212; both of which use the same underlying data!</p>
<p>I find it annoying that LJ is touting this list so much, when I do not think it is significantly different than Hennen&#8217;s (which appears in American Libraries). I am further annoyed that they call it a 2009 list when it is based on 2006 fiscal year data which was released by IMLS (www.imls.gov) in December 2008. Stay tuned!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Lindsey</title>
		<link>http://www.librarian.net/stax/2699/library-journals-star-libraries-show-me-the-data/comment-page-1/#comment-123622</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Lindsey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:15:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.librarian.net/?p=2699#comment-123622</guid>
		<description>Kansas tied for 3rd with California!  Only behind Ohio and New York, all states that have much higher populations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kansas tied for 3rd with California!  Only behind Ohio and New York, all states that have much higher populations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Michael Kellat</title>
		<link>http://www.librarian.net/stax/2699/library-journals-star-libraries-show-me-the-data/comment-page-1/#comment-123613</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Michael Kellat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:46:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.librarian.net/?p=2699#comment-123613</guid>
		<description>Nevada&#039;s score is potentially messy.  Las Vegas-Clark County Library District serves 80+% of the whole state&#039;s population.  Clark County has the vast majority of the state&#039;s population while outlying rural Nevada generally has counties with populations below 500k.  With our lopsided population distribution, I can see why the score for circulation was so high.  As for program attendance, that may be a problem in data collecting as Dad has run events at LVCCLD facilities for the guitar society and LVCCLD didn&#039;t collect data itself then.

Thanks for pointing out the story Jessamyn!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nevada&#8217;s score is potentially messy.  Las Vegas-Clark County Library District serves 80+% of the whole state&#8217;s population.  Clark County has the vast majority of the state&#8217;s population while outlying rural Nevada generally has counties with populations below 500k.  With our lopsided population distribution, I can see why the score for circulation was so high.  As for program attendance, that may be a problem in data collecting as Dad has run events at LVCCLD facilities for the guitar society and LVCCLD didn&#8217;t collect data itself then.</p>
<p>Thanks for pointing out the story Jessamyn!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

