Duplicate Title

Hi all! Just to let you know that this is being worked on: Dan in MN caught this: .."a second production of The great escape : a true story of forced labor and immigrant dreams in America has been posted to BARD.  In addition to DB 113144 we now have DB 113925 , too.  Which one will be kept?"

NLS is working on it, and will update soon!
Thanks Dan!
Maureen 

NLS's Stephanie Handy emailed me saying we should keep DB 113144. (We can get rid of DB 113925.)
Thanks, Maureen!
-Dan

Katie:

Should we await further instruction since DB113925 had a file in the Edoc?

Regards,

James

I just did a hasty reissue/delete to get rid of DB113925. I forgot about the eDoc... Oops.
Keystone staff: Did I do a bad, bad thing by deleting the record while the eDoc lingers?

You should be just fine, Dan. I'd say it's best practice to delete the eDoc before deleting the title record, but so long as that title is not in any Service Queues or Dup Orders, you should be ok!

Recommended steps for removing the duplicate title record:

• Use the Patrons with Queued Title report (patron module - reports - items and titles) to find any patrons with this title in their Service Queue or in a pending Duplication Order. Replace it with the title to keep (DB 113144) wherever you find it.
• Reissue DB113925 as 113144 to move any Reserves or Requests. Set new title status as Withdrawn.
• Mark the OPAC Suppressed checkbox (this is overkill since this record will be deleted, but may as well)
• Remove all Subject Headings (and Series if present)
• Delete the eDoc (if present) and the ePackage
• Then you can safely then Delete the record

I'd like to understand better the decision to keep DB 113144 over DB 113925. DB 113925 seems to be the fuller record with more interest codes (mapped MARC 072/690 fields), a more precise formatted contents statement (MARC 505), and a more precise place of publication (MARC 269 $a). Is there something in the eDoc that made you decide to choose one over the other? Thank you!

The decision of which title to keep came from NLS (see Dan's message near the top of the thread). It's important to go with their decision in case they pull the other file.
Hopefully a more detailed MARC record for the title to keep is coming soon, but in the meantime, you should be able to copy over the additional information.

Traci, I meant to respond to you before I left on Friday. (I totally forgot. Sorry.) Katy beat me to it. As she said, I was just rolling with what NLS said. When this happens (when NLS has two book #s for the same production) I never closely assess the metadata on either MARC records. The most I do is compare the subjects that made their way in to KLAS and maybe the annotation ("Is one shorter? Does one have annotations?"). Generally, I just do a cut and paste w/ the subjects. But I wouldn't be surprised if the metadata for the soon-to-be-deleted record is better than the one being kept.

I've always wondered how NLS settled which of the two to keep. I think they always go with the first iteration. I presume this is because that version may already have traction with users and automated systems, but I'm not sure.

Thank you both. That makes sense about the potential for them to keep the first record. I appreciate it.