<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Linda,<br>
<br>
I just re-read your message and noticed that you were asking about
loading records in acquisitions.<br>
<br>
While my previous e-mail is true for acquisitions record loading as
well, I also wanted to point out that in acquisitions, we always use
the match-only merge profile, which does not overlay existing
records, rather than going through this more complicated process of
evaluating record quality.<br>
<br>
Generally, we find that vendor records uploaded during ordering are
going to either be worse or the same quality as the ones already in
the database. If it matches an existing record, then, we only want
to add the holdings information, not overlay any of the bib fields.<br>
<br>
Kathy<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/20/2016 05:17 PM, LARL Technical
Services wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:578FEA4F.80300@larl.org" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<font size="-1">Hello everyone,<br>
<br>
I am wondering if anyone could tell me how to ensure the best
record is kept/chosen during the overlay process when ordering.<br>
Today I had a brief record in my order which overlaid a much
better permanent record already in the catalog when I activated
my order. This surprised me as I thought the system was set up
to choose the better of the two records and keep it. In looking
at the settings I have selected in the upload to queue screen, I
see "Best/single match minimum quality ratio __ New record
quality/quality of best match" which I have not been using. Is
this where I would instruct the system to keep the permanent
higher quality record instead of the temporary one in my order?
I am also not sure what the "insufficient quality fall through
profile" does but was told not to use this when we received our
training in Evergreen.<br>
<br>
Of course, if I am aware of a permanent record in the catalog
which I would like to keep, I usually order from/on that
record. But as we are a consortium using different ordering
processes, occasionally I am not aware that a record already
exists in the catalog as was the case today.<br>
<br>
Thank you for any advice you can give on this matter,<br>
Linda VanderMeulen</font>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Linda VanderMeulen
Lake Agassiz Regional Library
118 5th St. S.
Moorhead, MN 56560
218-233-3757, ext. 131
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.larl.org">www.larl.org</a></pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Evergreen-catalogers mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Evergreen-catalogers@list.evergreen-ils.org">Evergreen-catalogers@list.evergreen-ils.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-catalogers">http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-catalogers</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Kathy Lussier
Project Coordinator
Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
(508) 343-0128
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:klussier@masslnc.org">klussier@masslnc.org</a>
Twitter: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier">http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier</a></pre>
</body>
</html>