1. Searching the Bibliographic Utilities
1/18/2019
Searching the Bibliographic Utilities
Best Practices – Working Smarter
1/18/2019

2. Working Smarter: A Searching Best Practice is
1/18/2019
Working Smarter: A Searching Best Practice is
Cheap
Efficient
Simple
Appropriate for the Material
Searching best practices aim at getting the best balance out of these factors. You’re working smarter if you’re conscious of these principles when you plan how and where you search.
Cheap: you need to be aware of price per search, difference in price between the utilities, and which searches incur charges
Efficient: you want to get your searching done as quickly as possible, and you want to limit connect time on the utilities. And it is not efficient (or cheap) if too often you do the same thing twice and get substantially the same result.
Simple: ideally a search is cheap, efficient, and simple, but in reality some simple and efficient searches are expensive. On the other hand, a simple, cheap search is better than a complicated search that costs about the same.
Appropriate for the Material: But there are times when you need a complicated search if the material calls for it.
1/18/2019

3. Why Now? New OCLC/RLIN Interface=New Rate Structure
OCLC Connexion = $0.45 per search
RLIN21 = $0.60 per search
Number of annual searches impacts on our ability to negotiate the best deal with the utilities
1/18/2019

4. 1/18/2019
LCDB: No Charge!
First stop for recently published monographs (publication cutoff date: 1990)
First stop for serials
Skip LCDB for videos
LCDB is weak in some subject areas; skip if you are sure; search if in doubt
Bullet one: this means it’s not efficient to search LCDB for books published before 1990.
Bullet two: There is no cutoff point for serials, and the serial cataloging follows the CONSER standard
Bullet three: LC cataloging for video doesn’t follow AACR2, and in any case LC rarely catalogs videos, so it is not a good use of time to search LCDB for video cataloging copy
Bullet four. An obvious situation: if you are doing non-roman cataloging, there is no non-roman copy in LCDB, so this resource is ignored in the non-roman workflow for cataloging copy, although it may be useful for other reasons. Less obviously, LCDB is a poor source of cataloging copy for art history materials in foreign languages such as German, so the experienced searcher will generally go directly to the utilities. For some types of area publications, LC never upgrades beyond minimal level. Unless you need a bibliographic record to associate with an order record, LCDB would not be the first choice.
1/18/2019

5. 1/18/2019
LCDB, CIP & Workflow
Member libraries will complete CIP long before LC updates to full-level in LCDB
Pre-Order Searching: full record not necessary; search in LCDB for U.S. imprints
Cataloging on Receipt (Fastcat): search LCDB or OCLC, whichever is more efficient
Items from the Backlogs: search LCDB first; LC should have had time to complete the record
What about CIP? Since LCDB copy is from LC, the utility members will usually have updated the record before LC does. Downloading records updated from CIP to full from the utilities may be more efficient but it isn’t cheap. Consider the utilities option only if you are cataloging on receipt. You don’t need a full record for ordering: search LCDB first. If you are re-searching items from the backlog, LCDB should be the first place searched (at least for roman script); during the backlog period LC may have had time to update the CIP and do full cataloging on foreign publications that do not get CIP.
1/18/2019

6. No Record in LCDB? Search OCLC
1/18/2019
No Record in LCDB? Search OCLC
If you have a choice, search Connexion
OK to search RLIN if you know the database is richer in a subject area or for some area publications
If the percentage of usable cataloging records is about the same, prefer Connexion
Work smart: keep track of utility strengths & weaknesses; learn from experience
Bullet one: If you catalog on RLIN, current technology prevents us from efficiently importing copy from OCLC, so non-roman catalogers do not search on Connexion. Otherwise, OCLC should be the first choice, since the searching charges are substantially lower (and also because in the new interface the searching templates allow for more efficient searches).
1/18/2019

7. 1/18/2019
Avoid Re-Searching! (1)
If a usable record is found in one utility, don’t re-search it in the other utility in hopes of finding something better
If the in-process record in Voyager is usable, don’t search for something “better” on the utilities
Bullet one: There are different criteria for usability depending on whether the book is being ordered or received. If you are creating an order, the bibliographic doesn’t have to be standard level, so if the best record you can find in one utility is non-standard, you should not be re-searching in the other utility for better copy. If the book has been received, you want to be able to get the book cataloged as soon as possible, so if there is no cataloging copy at the acceptable code levels in the first utility searched, you will probably want to search the other utility if you have that option.
Bullet two: in the larger departments, a book can be searched as many as three times before it gets to cataloging (for the order, on receipt, when retrieved from the backlog). It’s not really helping to search the item a 4th time.
1/18/2019

8. 1/18/2019
Avoid Re-Searching! (2)
If searching by one index is unsuccessful in a utility, generally don’t re-search the same item with another index in the same utility
Both utilities charge for unsuccessful searches, so scan for typos before you SEND
Be sure you can identify the acceptable encoding levels in the OCLC/RLIN displays (as well as Voyager’s)
Bullet one: Just as you want to avoid re-searching in different utilities, you also want to avoid re-searching in the same utility. If you search by ISBN in OCLC and retrieve nothing, don’t re-search OCLC by title.
Bullet two: Of course, you will want to re-search the ISBN if you entered a typo and clicked OK, because a typo in a search will be unsuccessful. But you are going to be charged by either RLIN or OCLC for unsuccessful searches, so you’d be working smarter if you did a quick scan for typos before you sent the command. In RLIN, it’s particularly easy to forget to click the correct index button when you change indexes, so stay alert before you press enter.
Bullet 3. Exporting a record isn’t free either, so make sure you select a record with an acceptable encoding level before you export. (Go to the next slide)
1/18/2019

9. Standard Cataloging Levels
Definition
LCDB
OCLC
RLIN21
Full
Blank
Full not examined 1
Full, not ex.
Full level input by OCLC member
N/A I
Full level input via batch process on OCLC L
Core 4
Prepublication 8
Prepub.
1/18/2019

10. Effective Searching: Connexion
1/18/2019
Effective Searching: Connexion
Number searches are the most efficient if a number is available
Use keyword searches if a number search is not possible (no difference in price)
Keyword searching: combine multiple search terms and use qualifiers like date & format
Connexion is generally the better utility for searching serials
For some countries, the publication practices may make number searches unreliable. For example, in some countries, publishers recycle ISBNs. Searchers for area units need to take this into account and use alternative searches.
Connexion is usually the better utility for searching serials because the keyword template makes it easier to search generic titles when there is no ISSN, and because OCLC is the database of record for CONSER cataloging.
1/18/2019

11. Connexion: Avoid SCA TI=
½ charge for the sca ti= search
Additional search charge for every browse line you open
You can’t qualify the search by format, date, etc.
Compare keyword search: charged once for the initial search; no additional charge to look at any of the records retrieved
1/18/2019

12. Effective Searching: RLIN21
1/18/2019
Effective Searching: RLIN21
Unless you catalog directly on RLIN21, it should be your 2nd choice
Number searches are the most efficient if available
No charge if you search by record ID number; there is a full charge for all other number searches
All charged searches cost the same; no discount for number searches (change from old RLIN)
To determine the best record, be able to interpret effectively the new RLIN21 cluster tables
<Alt Tab to RLIN, Word image? I don’t think an RLIN search screen or the cluster table reproduces well on a PPt slide>
1/18/2019

13. RLIN21: No Number? Use Title Browse
1/18/2019
RLIN21: No Number? Use Title Browse
Click on the Title button to enable Title Browse
No charge if you don’t display any of the records retrieved on a Title Browse search
No additional charge if you open more than one line on the Browse display
Use the Limit options if the browse line has too many records (no extra charge for limiting)
For the publications of some countries, number searching can be unreliable—publishers will sometimes recycle ISBN numbers, for example. If you are sufficiently experienced working with the publications of a country, it may be smarter—and cheaper-- to skip the number search and do a title browse search, especially if you don’t routinely open a browse line when the browse search does not retrieve the precise title you searched.
If the title is too generic, as may be the case with some serials, you may have to use the Command Line and use boolean operators and limit chaining. Searches of this kind can be fairly complicated to formulate; there is an example in the handout.
RLIN is gradually introducing new limits, so it is worth checking the online RLIN21 Searching Guide for updates; check the date of the latest revision. (There’s a link on the Searching document)
1/18/2019

14. If You Catalog Directly on RLIN21
Authority searching has the same charges as bibliographic searching. Use LCDB or the LC Online Authority File unless you’re doing NACO work
No charge for “fin st s” searches
If number searches are unreliable, use Title Browse
1/18/2019

15. QUESTIONS?