45worlds Forum - View Single Post - Review Of Multiple Catalog Number

Latest Posts » CD Albums » View Topic

View Single Post

Topic: Review Of Multiple Catalog Number

23rd Jun 2014, 6:45 PM
	jaimeeduardo Member since Dec 2012 23849 Points	While other systems/discographies sometimes use core elements of the catalogue number to identify items, that has not been the practice in 45Worlds. Others have suggested using partial catalogue numbers in 45Worlds without success. It's not that one method is right, and one is wrong, it's that using mixed methods is unwise. I prefer the full catalogue number form used in 45Worlds because it is the most accurate form, it is the most searchable form. Using this full number is the practice seen in other systems, from Discogs to the more academic Library of Congress, and this is how I transcribed the number on the record in question. On the item linked here, changing the catalogue number has eliminated one of the chief identifiers for the item. In the future, others are likely to input a duplicate record, or initiate an additional change, since the record no longer matches the item described. (I plan on adding more images to this record, so there will at least be a visual record of the actual catalogue number. Many examples in 45Worlds contain no images). A maxim often heard in materials organization is "Stick to the piece." Our job is to organize data and transcribe what is on the piece. Deviating from this results in the kinds of problems encountered here. The Comments option allows ample room for additional information. This situation reminds me of the recent fiasco with the CBS label. Most of the records were input correctly, then some were changed to other name forms (scattering the items), now most have been changed back to the original form, the prominent label name "CBS" that appears on each item. How many hours were wasted on this, and what was accomplished? Nothing. "Sticking to the piece" was the solution. Sometimes the damage done by these changes can't be undone. In the CBS case, several records remain in limbo under what is probably a non-existent CBS-linked label name. Without images, and since the information (as is often the case) can't be verified at this time using the Internet, there remains (for now) no way to determine the actual label identity, even if one was once identified correctly upon input. Allowing partial catalogue numbers won't affect just this item. Will each Worlds member decide which numbers to shorten? Will the system maintain a list of exceptions for various labels? How will participants learn about these exceptions? The record referred to here was correct and complete as originally input (getting to be an old story!), so please reverse the change (and please don't allow these kinds of damaging changes in the future). For now, I will add a comment: "Catalogue number on item: ..." to make this item searchable and identifiable. However, I would rather not have to do this for other items. Let's not repeat CBS.