Berkeley has a "PAAAAAAAAAAAAARAPROFESSIONAL" cataloger whom I bless every
day of my working life...she's an ace who knows this stuff cold, has a good
sense of its importance for the institution, and has been assigned to do
the work full time.
When you treat media as anomaly, when you unhitch cataloging from
collection development and public service, and when you pay wages so low
that it's impossible to attract talent, you get crappy access.
At 03:54 PM 2/22/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>I believe it is a result of bad original cataloging coupled with
>non-discerning attachment of new records to existing OCLC records, coupled
>to inadequate authority checks.
>If only there were more well-trained professional "cataloging" librarians
>out there who were capable of discerning between poorly cataloged and well
>cataloged records, and who were willing to do more original cataloging where
>no adequate records existed.
>My guess is that there are just too many libraries (public and academic) on
>shoe-string budgets who are forced to rely on amateurs and poorly trained
>para/professionals, and don't have the funds to run exhaustive and regular
>Too bad. It would be a perfect world otherwise.
>Jan Abeita, Electronic Resources & Media Specialist
>Eastern Oregon University
>One University Blvd.
>La Grande, Oregon 97850
>~Pierce Library~ http://pierce.eou.edu/
>541-962-3780; email@example.com; fax: 541-962-3335
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "jon aubrey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: "Multiple recipients of list" <email@example.com>
>Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 1:48 PM
>Subject: Interfiling Woes
> > Hello vidlibbers. Please bear with me as I am but a
> > lowly graduate library school student, though perhaps
> > a future A/V librarian. I have some questions about
> > inter/misfiling of videos in the public library in
> > which I work. The A/V librarian here has consistently
> > referred me to how OCLC has cataloged certain items
> > when I've asked her why some fiction ends up shelved
> > with the non-fiction, and vice versa. For
> > instance...Does anyone out there have any idea why
> > certain titles (Ross McElway's Time Indefinite and
> > Sherman's March, Errol Morris' Mr. Death and Fast,
> > Cheap, Out Of Control)), all definitely documentaries,
> > should end up being cataloged and shelved with the
> > movies as feature fiction films? Though these films
> > were perhaps originally released and distributed as if
> > they were features, they are really just popular
> > documentaries marketed as if they were features. On
> > the other side of the equation, how did Thirty Two
> > Short Films About Glenn Gould, a fictionalized feature
> > film, ever end up being cataloged as V 780.92/Gould?
> > Glenn Gould didn't direct or write the script for this
> > film. Anyone have any ideas as to how these apparent
> > cataloging errors might have occurred?
> > On another note, it seems to me that while many
> > instructional videos should obviously be cataloged in
> > the appropriate non-fiction section, some documentary
> > titles might circulate far more if they were shelved
> > (not necessarily interfiled) with the fiction movies.
> > This might work particularly well with documantaries
> > that have been released theatrically (The Life And
> > Times Of Hank Greenberg), are/were up for Oscars
> > (Genghis Blues), or are more well known (The Sorrow
> > And The Pity, Woodstock). Has anyone out there
> > experimented with rotating a small number of more
> > popular documentary titles in a separate area within
> > or near their fiction movie section?
> > Thanks for indulging a puzzled student's curiosity,
> > and thanks for the tips earlier this week on where to
> > find Harry In Your Pocket.
> > Jon A.
> > Queens, NY
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
> > http://sports.yahoo.com
Media Resources Center
UC Berkeley, CA 94720-6000