Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Darn - a half-day of doubt

Warning: somewhat long and whiny post.

The retreat today was fun and informative, probably the best part about my day today (not counting my dinner, which will be delicious :D). Unfortunately, aside from that I feel like one of those cartoons where there's a character being followed around by a dark, rainy cloud. Just one of those days, you know?

Aside from being generally confused about the status of the small cart of things I decided could be weeded yesterday (if only I had procrastinated just a bit longer!), my cataloging today was filled with doubt. It wasn't any particular thing that inspired my doubt - just general doubt. Things like:
  • It's the Library of Congress's practice to only record "ill." and/or "map(s)" (for the most part), choosing not to specifically say when those illustrations are actually photographs or portraits or music or charts, etc. On AUTOCAT, not too long ago, a lot of catalogers complained about this lack of specificity and talked about how it could actually be helpful to users to be more specific. Those catalogers are more specific. I follow LC's practice, because I decided I have better things to do with my time than figure out what the various abbreviations and terms are for the different kinds of illustrations. Plus, when I flip through, all I need to pay attention to is whether there any pictures or maps at all, not what any of them actually look like. Sometimes I wonder if this is a mistake, and if it would actually matter to people whether an illustration is a drawing or a photograph, or whether a book has portraits. I have no idea what the catalogers before me did, or if they even thought about it at all.
  • Why do I record/check information in records that people aren't going to see and/or that isn't searchable? The answer to this is that, if it's not recorded/checked now, then if, in the future, it does become searchable (even if only by librarians via reports) and/or visible to the public, the library, our users, our collection, and the Cataloger (me or whoever) will suffer the consequences. Every time I work on catalog maintenance, I see the results of information not being recorded or checked (for whatever reason) - that's part of why I'm such a perfectionist (some might say "anal") about various record details. I understand all of that, and yet there are days when it's a wee bit depressing to enter or check information when I know it has no immediate use.
  • Also, leapfrogging on the whole perfectionism thing, should I care less? If "quantity cataloged" matters more than "quality of the records" (because "quantity," by its nature, is easier to quantify for statistics than "quality") are there things I should be considering no longer doing? The things that take the most time (for book cataloging, anyway) are things like adding new authority records (the things that make sure we have cross-references in our "browse" searches) and adding table of contents information or summaries. DVDs, videotapes, and any original cataloging are also automatically time-consuming. I don't want to "skimp" on things - I wouldn't be doing them if I didn't think they were important - but I think about this kind of thing when I hear about catalogers who've been laid off, or administrators who criticize catalogers for caring too much about the details (isn't that what we're supposed to be doing?). I also think about this kind of stuff when a new project gets added to my "to do" list. Thankfully, as far as the former stuff goes, our library has a pretty "cataloger-friendly" work environment. As far as the latter...ugh.
  • I don't know if you read this blog, Janie, but you might be interested to know that I flip flop between thinking that multiple formats should be on one record and thinking they should each have their own, separate record. I hate that I can't be ok with one decision or the other.
And that's only a sampling of the things that sometimes make me doubt my cataloging. Even as I think these kinds of thoughts, I keep doing things the way I "should" be doing them, or the way I decided I should be doing them, and I think about possible workarounds for anything where the capabilities of the catalog seem to be failing the library (of course, it's always possible that they're not failings, but rather just things where our settings need to be modified...). Still, I prefer the days when these thoughts aren't so much downers as energizers.

5 comments:

  1. More good stuff!

    generally confused about the status of the small cart of things I decided could be weeded yesterday (if only I had procrastinated just a bit longer!)

    WEED 'EM. You are not the only one who heard something different at the meeting than what was recorded in the minutes. While there may not be that many areas in the stacks that are overflowing, I think weeding is one of those chores that needs to be kept up with, or it becomes overwhelming at some point. Besides, I still don't think we serve our customers well when we have ratty-looking or horribly-superceded stuff on the shelves.

    If you put those slips with your notes on why you weeded it in each book (which is a GREAT idea - thanks for sharing), you're good to go I think - if someone else wants to second-guess your decisions, that is their problem.

    It's the Library of Congress's practice to only record "ill." and/or "map(s)" (for the most part), choosing not to specifically say when those illustrations are actually photographs or portraits or music or charts, etc.

    Seems to me that is enough detail. Definitely for the kids' books (having the illustrator's name in the record is more important as people search on that). Only possible exception I can think of is stuff for the Fine Arts department.

    Why do I record/check information in records that people aren't going to see and/or that isn't searchable? The answer to this is that, if it's not recorded/checked now, then if, in the future, it does become searchable (even if only by librarians via reports) and/or visible to the public, the library, our users, our collection, and the Cataloger (me or whoever) will suffer the consequences.

    I am glad you do this!

    If "quantity cataloged" matters more than "quality of the records" (because "quantity," by its nature, is easier to quantify for statistics than "quality") are there things I should be considering no longer doing?

    Can't different kinds of quantities be counted? Nunber of brief records versus number of items with original cataloging? Just ideas off the top of my head from a non-cataloger who used to be in governmental budget offices and knows why they like those quantity numbers!

    I flip flop between thinking that multiple formats should be on one record and thinking they should each have their own, separate record.

    By this do you mean, for example, that if we have an audiobook and a hardbound of the same book, they should be on the same record?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I just got an official "ok" for weeding that cart worth of stuff, so I'm glad about that.

    As far as getting numbers of brief records and original cataloging - with brief records, I don't think there's a way to find those in Symphony, since there doesn't seem to be a way to search individual fixed fields (there's a fixed field that tells catalogers approximately the level of cataloging that went into a record - I'd love to be able to search by this field in our ILS).

    As far as your last question, I'm actually just talking about electronic vs. print - like when we have a journal in both electronic and print formats.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Darn...I made a super long response and then lost it...DARN.

    Both of you PLEASE keep weeding. We need it so much. (I laughed when I saw Donna's email, because that was not what was said in the meeting)

    Melissa if there are things you think we can do to make the cataloging/indexing better, come on up and we will research/call about them. Most of the time I don't take the time to do it when I get an email because I think if it is a major issue you will keep after me. I'm so busy doing something else - but after yesterday session - maybe I need help prioritizing things.

    The whole separate records issues has puzzled me for a while. I see both sides of the issue. Separate records make it easier for batch loading, maintenance, and global/group edits. If we want to put everything on one records then LOTS of time will be needed.

    Please both of you DON'T get discouraged! Things are MUCH BETTER since you got here!

    January 7, 2010 8:35 AM

    ReplyDelete
  5. Melissa,
    The detail you add to the records is enormously helpful for our patrons & for me when I'm helping patrons locate material. For my vote -- quality surpasses quantity in most (if not all) cases. Consider your efforts valued. K?

    ReplyDelete