« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Introduction  (Read 217 times)

RichB

  • Global Moderator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Introduction
« on: August 17, 2020, 04:04:11 pm »
3) Topic: Shelf-ready metadata quality

Quality is a primary issue for those who take shelf-ready records. If the record quality is insufficiently high then it will take staff time to deal with and/or the records will not be discoverable. It is not just a problem in terms of the time it takes to identify and correct the records but the money spent on obtaining them. Are we getting value for money?

Questions to consider:
•   Is any record better than no record at all?
•   What kinds of issues do you find? Are they systematic or ad hoc?
•   Do you have any checking processes? What would trigger an “intervention”?

Essentially, what’s wrong with the data? Are the core MARC fields identified in the report really core fields? How do we agree on the use of standards?
Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

dboyes1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2020, 11:40:45 am »
I think that any record is better than no record at all - provided that the information therein is accurate. A brief catalogue record is at least accessible and hopefully discoverable rather than no details at all. The worst records we receive from a supplier are from GOBI. Usually 2 lines of capitalized letters for an author and title. We upgrade these accordingly.
Logged
Like Like x 2 View List

Sue Ackermann

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2020, 11:41:19 am »
Hi everyone
Is this a question of balancing the benefits of the speed of shelf ready against issues with discoverability? I guess we would need to look at the percentage of records that are so poor that they prevent discovery against those that are OK - although not perfect - but they aren't a huge barrier to people finding what they need?
Logged

RichB

  • Global Moderator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2020, 11:41:45 am »
In response to the questions:

1) Yes, always. There's not enough hours in the day as it is.
2) Both! Some suppliers are consistently sloppy with how they use MARC and throw everything including the kitchen sink in to record without considering how it will display. Others provide neat, clear records but then throw a curve ball and you receive a record for a book about the French revolution when you've ordered an electrical engineering textbook.
3) Yes but it is time consuming - I use the reporting features in Capita's Alto to identify records that need an intervention.

Yes, I think the report's about right on core fields but the question of how you get all the parties to agree on standards is... tricky.
Logged

Galen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2020, 11:45:33 am »
 I think the core metadata elements identified in the report are correct. I think the kind of broad stakeholder consensus sought by NISO RP-29-202X for ebook metadata is essential and for this reason the requirements shouldn't be defined solely by MARC fields.


PS I have another meeting now so will sign off for 30 mins - bye for now!
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List

Nick Williams

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2020, 11:46:58 am »
Overall, I never had a problem with metadata quality in generic print book records when I worked at my former employer. This was due to a realistic approach regarding what they could expect suppliers to be able to supply at a reasonable level of quality (e.g. excluding forgein languages, non standard classification) If you only place shelf ready orders for material you know suppliers are unlikley to get wrong and that won't need correcting you make the time saving gains whilst avoiding the inconevience of having to train the supplier's staff in how to catalogue and classify more difficult material.

The only problem was the supply of non RDA records when the cataloguing department’s policy was to upgrade to RDA whereever possible.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2020, 02:04:14 pm by Nick Williams »
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List

Corinne Lambert

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2020, 11:47:20 am »
Testing is this working I have had issues posting ....
Logged

RichB

  • Global Moderator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2020, 11:49:55 am »
Sue's question is one I've been asked by my own managers and I think it's valid. We made the decision to focus on the exceptions, which gives us more time to focus on items where it's gone badly wrong. This is usually triggered by users or colleagues failing to find something of it being so poorly described as to be useless. But I think suppliers should work together on ensuring that they maintain and promote the 'proper' application of standards, as this would eliminate many of the exceptions in the first place.

Just read Galen's & Nick's post both of which I broadly agree with. Galen is right to bring up the issue of 'other agencies', at the risk of going off on a tangent it is our reliance on MARC, a format only libraries use, that causes many of our problems.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2020, 11:56:50 am by RichB »
Logged

RichB

  • Global Moderator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2020, 11:52:10 am »
Corinne, I can read it so it's looking good for you to post.
Logged

Corinne Lambert

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2020, 11:52:17 am »
I thought Emma's report was a refreshing read. It seems finally the importance of metadata/cataloguing is being recognised. This is of course linked to the more sophisticated library systems now in use that rely on those LDR 008 codes to work efficiently and sift through the vast amount of data now available for a happy search result.

Historically we had a situation where "free" marc records from suppliers were eagerly accepted sadly without much analysis of quality so there is a lot of SR legacy data already out there of a low quality.

Corinne
Logged

Nick Williams

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2020, 11:54:28 am »
It surprised me how many libraries correct shelf ready records before books go to the shelves. I can’t remember if the repoprt draws a disrtinction between briefly reviewing the records to see that the required felds for every book are present then in more detail checking that the contents of those fields are actually correct? Checking in detail that the contents of each field is correct before loading shelf-ready records contradicts the rationale for shelf-ready, I think.

My personal view is that it’s preferable to rely on serious errors “coming to the surface” through collections, customer support and acadmic liason staff so that calatoguers / metadata librarians can spend their time cataloguing unique and scholarly collections instead (for which there aren’t shelf-ready records available) 

« Last Edit: August 19, 2020, 12:10:02 pm by Nick Williams »
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List

Corinne Lambert

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction
« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2020, 11:55:25 am »
Perhaps Quality metadata should now be part of the purchase package like getting a print book that is not damaged. Of course with very new titles this is an issue as cat records can't be poached by suppliers from elsewhere. But some have invested in inhouse cataloguing....
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »