Talk:Cutter Expansive Classification

Different things

Any librarian in a system using the DDC can tell you that the "Cutter Classification System" and the "Cutter number" are quite different things. The latter is the second line on the spine, below the Dewey class number and providing a letter-number code for the author's surname and the first letter (or letters) of the book title. Second & subsequent editions are also incorporated. The Cutter makes it much easier to shelve books in proper order. I'll write this up properly when I have the time, and then re-separate the "Cutter number" page, which currently redirects here. --Michael K. Smith 02:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Lotsa refs but no inline citations

This article should probably have a {{nofootnotes}} tag. OlEnglish (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Cutter Classification vs Expansive Classification

There is some ambiguity in the current article due to the fact that the system developed by Cutter for the Boston Athenaeum is not the same as Cutter's better known Expansive Classification. If the classification used by the Boston Athenaeum is often referred to as the Cutter System then it might be best to avoid this phrase altogether to avoid confusion. I have already changed the text of the external links to reflect this distinction, but I thought I should open the idea to comment before making changes to main text of the page. Mr. Kalish (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Still no responses here! I'm going to go ahead and make the changes. Mr. Kalish (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Contrast with Library Of Congress Classification

The introduction states this the CEC uses all letters to designate the top categories of books while the LOC uses both letters and numbers. This is not true. CEC call numbers may start with numbers (for example 66F and F66 are equivalent—both may be used for Chinese history, and it is up to the individual library to decide which is preferable) and both systems have class marks which mix letters and numbers. I have deleted the offending statement. Mr. Kalish (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate 'discussion' from main article

I dunno who made these comments, as they weren't signed, and I'm not going to trace them down in the edit log.... I'm just moving it here.

=== Must Hash Codes Be of "Fixed Length"? ===

This page says that hash codes generated by a hash function are of "fixed length", but gives no explanation of why this is so. It seems to me that hash codes could be of varying length and still satisfy all the purposes of a hashing system. I would argue that typically a hash function produces hash codes that are of uniform length, but that uniform or fixed length is not an inherent attribute of a hash code. Can anyone offer evidence to the contrary?

REPLY: I wondered the same thing. Cutter codes have the same purpose as hash codes, but they are determined based not on a fixed set of rules that can operate on arbitrary data (hash function), but on looking up a specific name (other other kind of value) in a Cutter table that has been predetermined by a third party. One characteristic of hash functions is that two different parties can execute the hash function (or rules) on the same arbitrary datum and get the same hash code as a result. Another characteristic of hash codes (according to this Wikipedia article) is that they are of "fixed length", which Cutter codes are not; but I am uncertain if it is true that hash codes must be of fixed length, because the article gives no explanation of this requirement, so I'll add a question about that.

Revent (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Notes to Refs, Refs to Further Reading?

In keeping with more common practice, I'd like to change Notes to References, and References to either Bibliography or Further Reading. Let me know if anyone objects, or has a better idea. LaMona (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cutter Expansive Classification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928204437/http://www.forbeslibrary.org/pathfinders/Shelvingrules.pdf to http://www.forbeslibrary.org/pathfinders/Shelvingrules.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)