[Evergreen-catalogers] [External] Re: Questions for fellow consortium catalogers

Wed Jul 29 16:04:40 EDT 2020

We are extremely fortunate that Georgia state law restricts library
organization to county level or above (multicounty systems). City and town
level independent libraries do not receive state funding or support. County
library systems may have city/town libraries, but they are branches of that
county system. Georgia does have a few independent city or town libraries
but they are not part of the OCLC contract.

As a result, we have 63 library systems (one system has 2 OCLC symbols) and
the state library on the contract. It is much easier for us to administer
and manage and is likely less expensive than a state that would have large
numbers of city/town level independent libraries. We do have over 400
branches and service outlets within the 63 systems, but they are under the
county and multicounty administrative organization.

The subscription rate is based on your cataloging activity -- number of
records you import, searching, etc. It is also mitigated by the number of
original records you create and the number of master records in WorldCat
you replace/correct. OCLC is not exactly forthcoming in exactly how they
use those stats to calculate a subscription rate.

I am pretty sure CatExpress is part of our contract. PINES libraries don't
use it but I don't know if nonPINES libraries do.

I'm not at liberty to post how much our contract with OCLC is. If you want
a ballpark figure, I can give you one off list.

Some of our statewide OCLC stats for 2019

WorldCat Searches          929,426

Update Existing WorldCat Records           156,982

Update New WorldCat Records  1,842

Produce Existing WorldCat Records          860

Produce New WorldCat Records 797

WorldCat Replaces          7,611

WorldCat Exports             56,772

Delete Holdings 299,846

LC Authority Searches     91,480

LC Authority Browses     11,365

LC Authority Adds            172

LC Authority Replaces     66

LC Authority Exports       57,932

PINES has over 1.8 million holdings set in OCLC and adds about 400,000 year.

I can't get good stats on the number of records we import. The stats above
has 52,000 for the state; but, I think it is far more than that.

Elaine

J. Elaine Hardy, PINES and Collaborative Projects Manager
------------------------------

Georgia Public Library Service

2872 Woodcock Blvd., Suite 250 | Atlanta, GA 30341

(404) 235-7128 | ehardy at georgialibraries.org

(404) 548-4241 | Cell
brary

<https://www.facebook.com/georgialibraries>
<https://www.twitter.com/georgialibs>

Join our email list <http://georgialibraries.org/subscription> for stories
of Georgia libraries making an impact in our communities.

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 8:38 AM Kate Coleman <kcoleman at jeffcolib.org> wrote:

> Janet and all,
>
> I have expressed interest to our state library about reaching out to see
> how much a consortium-wide subscription to OCLC would be, as the vast
> majority of our libraries do not subscribe. I see the incredible value of
> all catalogers resourcing their bibs from the same place. I know it's going
> to be very expensive, though, and we would most likely have to get a grant
> year after year to get it.
>
>
> Kate Coleman
> Jefferson County Library - Central Services
> Technical Services Specialist
> 5678 State Rd. PP
> High Ridge, MO 63049
> 636-677-8689
> Fax: 636--677-1769
> kcoleman at jeffcolib.org
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 2:03 PM Janet Schrader <jschrader at cwmars.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Elaine et al.,
>>
>> Last year we sent an RFP to OCLC in an attempt to reduce the amount of
>> our OCLC subscription.  At that time we were told that the 29 libraries
>> that use CatExpress could catalog under our CWJ subscription instead of
>> purchasing records which are now $1.32 each and any overage is billed at
>> double the cost for prepaid. Because of the shut-down we were unable to get
>> some answers from OCLC, such as would the CatExpress libraries be
>> limited to export only as they are now. I hope to look into this again as a
>> cost saving for our members.
>>
>> We did get a reduction for the next three years, but not as much as we
>> hoped for.
>>
>>
>> Janet
>>
>>
>> Janet Schrader
>>
>> Bibliographic Services Supervisor | CW MARS
>>
>> 67 Millbrook Street, Suite 201, Worcester, MA 01606
>>
>> P: 508-755-3323 x 325 | F: 508-757-7801
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> jschrader at cwmars.org  ||  http;//cwmars.org <http://www.cwmars.org/>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 2:15 PM Elaine Hardy <ehardy at georgialibraries.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I should have mentioned that we are fortunate enough to have a statewide
>>> contract for OCLC services, for PINES and nonPINES libraries, so individual
>>> libraries do not have to have a subscription.
>>>
>>> J. Elaine Hardy, PINES and Collaborative Projects Manager
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Georgia Public Library Service
>>>
>>> 2872 Woodcock Blvd., Suite 250 | Atlanta, GA 30341
>>>
>>> (404) 235-7128 | ehardy at georgialibraries.org
>>>
>>> (404) 548-4241 | Cell
>>>
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/georgialibraries>
>>> <https://www.twitter.com/georgialibs>
>>>
>>> Join our email list <http://georgialibraries.org/subscription> for
>>> stories of Georgia libraries making an impact in our communities.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 1:59 PM Stroup, Meg <MStroup at statelibrary.sc.gov>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is starting to come up a lot in SCLENDS, and I’m not sure how
>>>> we’re going to handle it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right now, we use the same policy as PINES (re: separate records), and
>>>> that’s the practice that’s in our cataloging manual.  However, very few of
>>>> our libraries have OCLC, so that’s a significant difference—when the
>>>> records are coming from all over, it is harder to keep everyone on the same
>>>> page (same record?).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We get records from Z39.50 sources, and most of our libraries have a
>>>> BookWhere subscription. I’ll put in a good word for BookWhere and say that
>>>> the catalogers do really like it and generally have success finding
>>>> records. We also have vendor records entering the system.  As others said,
>>>> we strongly encourage enhancement of any incoming record and removal of
>>>> extraneous information—which would include ISBNs that do not pertain to the
>>>> item that’s actually in hand.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If an SCLENDS library is unable to locate a record, and an item
>>>> requires original cataloging, they have the option of sending it to us at
>>>> the State Library, and we’ll create the record (and enter it in OCLC).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The circulation workgroup has expressed interest in combining formats
>>>> on a single record, for the reasons that others outlined below. I do
>>>> understand their frustration, but the cataloger in me honestly doesn’t like
>>>> the idea. I’m also concerned that combining multiple formats on a single
>>>> record could get a little Wild Wild West. We do not have a cataloging
>>>> oversight group: it’s just me, and it’s already difficult to keep 20
>>>> library systems’ cataloging practices consistent. My worry is that, even
>>>> with clearly-stated policies (the Cardinal ones are excellent), things
>>>> would get a little *too* cataloger’s judgement-y.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As a side note, we did a heavy deduplication last year, and bad merges
>>>> typically come from records that had ISBNs for multiple formats (and from
>>>> records that were not coded correctly in the fixed fields).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I’m wading through the catalog (usually updating authorities or
>>>> something similar), I do sneakily merge paperback records for anything I
>>>> call a “summer reading book.”  Merging all 4756476 copies of older
>>>> paperback editions of *Catcher in the Rye* and similar titles allows
>>>> me to say I’m doing something to address the circulation group’s
>>>> concerns—until we do have to make a real policy decision.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All that said, we’re going to have to deal with this issue sooner or
>>>> later.  I’m glad Jessica brought this up, and I’m very interested in what
>>>> everyone has to say.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Meg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Meg Stroup, MLIS
>>>>
>>>> SCLENDS Cataloging Coordinator
>>>>
>>>> 1500 Senate Street, Columbia, SC 29201
>>>>
>>>> (803) 737-7736 | mstroup at statelibrary.sc.gov
>>>>
>>>> [image: signature_681103706] <http://www.statelibrary.sc.gov/>
>>>>
>>>> *Innovation | Collaboration | Participation | Preservation*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *"Goben, Anna" <agoben at library.in.gov>
>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 11:15 AM
>>>> *To: *Jessica Philyaw <jphilyaw at fontanalib.org>, Kate Coleman <
>>>> kcoleman at jeffcolib.org>
>>>> *Cc: *Elaine Hardy <ehardy at georgialibraries.org>, Elizabeth Thomsen <
>>>> et at noblenet.org>, "jschrader at cwmars.org" <jschrader at cwmars.org>,
>>>> "Stroup, Meg" <MStroup at statelibrary.sc.gov>, "
>>>> jennifer.pringle at bc.libraries.coop" <jennifer.pringle at bc.libraries.coop>,
>>>> "cmalmgren at roanoketexas.com" <cmalmgren at roanoketexas.com>, "
>>>> mllewell at biblio.org" <mllewell at biblio.org>
>>>> *Subject: *[External] Re: Questions for fellow consortium catalogers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Our policy in Indiana has been edging towards combining records more as
>>>> the catalog has grown explosively and patrons and staff have expressed
>>>> frustration about knowing which record to use for holds.  As you say, lots
>>>> and lots of discussion initially and some active disagreement on
>>>> merging/using the same records, but as we've been doing it for a while,
>>>> we're getting good feedback from our patrons and staff mind it less that
>>>> it's not the OCLC way of doing things.  Recently we even made the call to
>>>> move mixed videodisc types onto shared records as long as a combo pack (or
>>>> packs) was issued at some point, and the content is an exact match for the
>>>> combo pack record other than UPC/ISBN (example record:
>>>> http://evergreen.lib.in.us/eg/opac/record/21807955
>>>> <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fevergreen.lib.in.us%2Feg%2Fopac%2Frecord%2F21807955&data=02%7C01%7CMStroup%40statelibrary.sc.gov%7Cfbe733a53e924442e29208d83309002b%7Ce9f8d01480d84f27b0d6c3d6c085fcdd%7C1%7C0%7C637315461035823553&sdata=4zRzRfAjvV9qG%2BkfUKjXNBw4cfS0bHKYZG%2FwBuRtrGY%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> )
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We get records in from any of our currently configured Z39.50 sources
>>>> (17 options) with a only handful of members currently subscribing to OCLC.
>>>> We also get in records from vendors, so it's a bit of a grab-bag on initial
>>>> import, but we encourage everyone to contribute and update any record
>>>> that's less robust than desired.  We spend a LOT of time on our internal
>>>> cataloging list checking to confirm if new records are required if the
>>>> discrepancy is very small.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We do not put mass market paperbacks on shared records due to the major
>>>> physical differences, but if the page count/publication date is the same,
>>>> we do add trade paperbacks and book club editions to hard cover records.
>>>> We also ignore preview content in pagination evaluation, but special
>>>> features, like Book club discussion guides, do get counted and are grounds
>>>> for a separate record.  We add reprints/rebinds by companies like Follett,
>>>> Scholastic, Paw Prints, etc. to the main record if there's no change to the
>>>> content/responsible parties other than publisher.  And with audiobooks, we
>>>> allow for Library editions to be on records with trade editions as long as
>>>> the only difference is the edition statement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We're currently debating what to do when a back-catalog is bought out
>>>> by a new publisher, but no changes are introduced other than the publisher
>>>> of record (see Amazon's takeover of  a number of titles from Marshall
>>>> Cavendish with their Two Lions imprint).  They aren't exactly
>>>> rebinds/reprints, so the 264 gets complicated...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Officially, we still observe the OCLC rules for adding new records, but
>>>> our list of exceptions has definitely grown so we don't have 5M bibs with
>>>> nothing but a single item on them: Bib Matching Guidelines
>>>> <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1CC4a4Nospejb06dub5x2GfvEFrQAlzA2wJlwwZZA-9k%2Fedit%23heading%3Dh.qgyw7kiqaas5&data=02%7C01%7CMStroup%40statelibrary.sc.gov%7Cfbe733a53e924442e29208d83309002b%7Ce9f8d01480d84f27b0d6c3d6c085fcdd%7C1%7C0%7C637315461035823553&sdata=5N0T1MMyWecHznRhqtLb5lptpFsPN78sXtlImixjk6k%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Anna
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anna Goben
>>>>
>>>> Evergreen Indiana Coordinator
>>>>
>>>> Indiana State Library
>>>>
>>>> 140 N. Senate Ave.
>>>>
>>>> Indianapolis, IN 46204
>>>>
>>>> Telephone: 317-234-6624
>>>>
>>>> Fax: 317-262-3713
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Jessica Philyaw <jphilyaw at fontanalib.org>
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2020 9:43 AM
>>>> *To:* Kate Coleman <kcoleman at jeffcolib.org>
>>>> *Cc:* Elaine Hardy <ehardy at georgialibraries.org>; Elizabeth Thomsen <
>>>> et at noblenet.org>; jschrader at cwmars.org <jschrader at cwmars.org>; Stroup,
>>>> Meg <MStroup at statelibrary.sc.gov>; jennifer.pringle at bc.libraries.coop <
>>>> jennifer.pringle at bc.libraries.coop>; cmalmgren at roanoketexas.com <
>>>> cmalmgren at roanoketexas.com>; mllewell at biblio.org <mllewell at biblio.org>;
>>>> Goben, Anna <AGoben at library.IN.gov>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: Questions for fellow consortium catalogers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open
>>>> attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Kate and all:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In NC Cardinal, we decided to put paperbacks, including mass market
>>>> paperbacks, on the same record as hardcovers, with the appropriate ISBNs
>>>> all on the record, with a 500 line indicating "publisher and paging may
>>>> differ." The rationale was to cut down on the number of records for content
>>>> that is the same. We had feedback from patrons that it was annoying to have
>>>> a title search bring up so many separate records. We do not worry about
>>>> paperbacks that have previews of forthcoming titles (we don't consider that
>>>> worthy of a record of its own), but we will do a separate record if there
>>>> is new/different substantive content, such as a reader's guide, new
>>>> foreword, etc. However, something like "first paperback edition" or a
>>>> different imprint or publisher does NOT merit a separate record. (eBooks
>>>> always go on their own record, though, and those ISBNs never appear on
>>>> print book records.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This was a controversial decision at the time it was made, but the
>>>> majority of libraries agreed that cutting down the number of "duplicate"
>>>> records was worth the loss of distinction between paperback and hardcover
>>>> formats. Now that the policy has been in place for a couple of years, it
>>>> doesn't seem as controversial, although it is true that, like any
>>>> cataloging policy, it is sometimes overlooked in error.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can refer to NC Cardinal instructions here:
>>>>
>>>> https://nccardinalsupport.org/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=64
>>>> <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnccardinalsupport.org%2Findex.php%3Fpg%3Dkb.page%26id%3D64&data=02%7C01%7CMStroup%40statelibrary.sc.gov%7Cfbe733a53e924442e29208d83309002b%7Ce9f8d01480d84f27b0d6c3d6c085fcdd%7C1%7C0%7C637315461035833508&sdata=xPf%2BK4%2BzpeljZ3O9NyiwhdcIJqbQQ%2FIuqgfGVc%2B%2BxhM%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I hope this is helpful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Jessica
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Jessica Philyaw (jphilyaw at fontanalib.org)
>>>>
>>>> Assistant County Librarian and Technical Services Supervisor
>>>>
>>>> Jackson County Public Library
>>>>
>>>> 310 Keener St.
>>>>
>>>> Sylva, NC 28779
>>>>
>>>> Phone: 828-586-2016
>>>>
>>>> Fax: 828-631-2943
>>>>
>>>> "Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of my
>>>> agency. All e-mail sent to or from the Fontana Regional Library e-mail
>>>> systems is subject to monitoring and disclosure to third parties, including
>>>> law enforcement personnel."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 8:55 AM Kate Coleman <kcoleman at jeffcolib.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello fellow consortium catalogers! I'm the head of the cataloging
>>>> committee for Missouri Evergreen. We are bringing an issue to our board for
>>>> discussion, and I would love to know your policy/procedures on our issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Could you please share with me how you decide when to place a new
>>>> record in your shared catalog for a title and your reasonings behind that
>>>> decision? ? More specifically, do you place more than one ISBN in the same
>>>> record? (I don't mean 10/13 digit ISBN). Do you put trade paperback and
>>>> hardcover on the same record? Do you combine all paperbacks on one and all
>>>> hardcovers on another, or something like that? What are your criteria for
>>>> doing so? I'm familiar with OCLC's guidelines.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kate Coleman
>>>> Jefferson County Library - Central Services
>>>> Technical Services Specialist
>>>> 5678 State Rd. PP
>>>> High Ridge, MO 63049
>>>> 636-677-8689
>>>> Fax: 636--677-1769
>>>> kcoleman at jeffcolib.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Jessica Philyaw (jphilyaw at fontanalib.org)
>>>>
>>>> Assistant County Librarian and Technical Services Supervisor
>>>>
>>>> Jackson County Public Library
>>>>
>>>> 310 Keener St.
>>>>
>>>> Sylva, NC 28779
>>>>
>>>> Phone: 828-586-2016
>>>>
>>>> Fax: 828-631-2943
>>>>
>>>> "Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of my
>>>> agency. All e-mail sent to or from the Fontana Regional Library e-mail
>>>> systems is subject to monitoring and disclosure to third parties, including
>>>> law enforcement personnel."
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Evergreen-catalogers mailing list
>> Evergreen-catalogers at list.evergreen-ils.org
>>
>> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-catalogers
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/evergreen-catalogers/attachments/20200729/cc47cfbc/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 28239 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/evergreen-catalogers/attachments/20200729/cc47cfbc/attachment-0001.png>