> to find relevant material

There you show the possibility of having selected an activity among many possible.

Your expression suggests /to seek/, ex IE sag, "to track", which is not /to search/, ex Lat circare, "look around" - to explore.

Parts of the exploration (the complementary part of exploitation) is benefited by having a large amount of material in front of you, browsable. And having thousands of volumes at hand and immediately remains invaluable; electronic experience remains different.

I disagree -- electronic experience isn't different.

You can build any kind of interface for electronic "looking around" or "exploring" that you like.

While in a physical library, you are limited entirely to a single fixed physical layout.

There is nothing a physical library can do for exploring that can't be replicated on a computer. But a computer can add all sorts of incredible improvements.

And why would you only want to have thousands of volumes at hand for immediate access, when you could have millions instead?

> I disagree ... experience isn't different

Oh but you mustn't - because it is, it physically is. To simulate it, you would have to build a virtual reality system with a staggering resolution and FOV. Because a sauna and a jacuzzi are "not different" only to one perspective - and what is highlighted is the other one. You may say that one can get contented with one of them ways - and we are replying that it is not necessary. ...You can have both.

> And why would you only want to have thousands of volumes at hand for immediate access, when you could have millions instead

First of all, "Real" book repostitories can be in the order of the hundreds of thousands. Bookstores of that magnitude still exist (though rare), and libraries of the magnitude of millions are available.

Contextually, practically instead: this side of the Atlantic many publishers work through collections - so, when you wanted to e.g. search through the Poetry collection of publisher Alpha, you will have in front of you a few hundreds or thousands items, publication #1 to #123 or #1 to #1234 for the whole publishing effort, curated by experts within the publishing house. I.e. you will have the complete set in front of you. (This is more valid for special locations than in general - in libraries, the Dewey system tends to break it.)

> ...You can have both.

But at what cost?

Frankly, I don't want my taxpayer dollars or university tuition subsidizing the miniscule number of people who both want the "romance" of the stacks and actually use them regularly, when there's zero practical benefit over online versions.

I'd much rather those billions of dollars being spent on many thousands of libraries' physical collections went to paying teachers and professors instead, for instance.

You may have the wrong idea about what physical collections cost and how much money would be saved by replacing them with digital collections (the number is negative).

Do you have a source for that?

Because if the number were negative in the long-term, it doesn't make sense that libraries would be doing that.

Source is I run a library. We pay outrageous prices for eBooks which 1) aren't actually owned, 2) can't be bought used or donated, 3) may expire after a fixed term or number of circulations, and 4) generally have to be managed within vendor-specific eBook lending platforms which in the not-that-long run are going to cost any library more than a set of shelves.

Some useful commentary here: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...

[Edit] As for whether this makes sense for libraries, we have to meet the demands and expectations of our users whether it makes sense or not. The hope (HOPE) is that given enough time and changes in the market, some of the terms under which we now acquire and pay for digital resources will become more favorable to libraries, but that could be a long way away. What I can tell you is that there are probably about 0 universities (in the US) who are actually prioritizing physical collections development over digital in spite of the costs.

Aside: your writing style is confusing and very hard to follow.

Collections are great, but from your example there are thousands of books on something rather obscure that very few libraries are going to have. Further organzing all the books in such a collection is trivial - if you do it online.