On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Katia Strieck wrote:
> after some discussion, we at Penn also feel that OCLC should not change the
> current policy. I also agree with Robert below that there should be more
> emphasis on users reporting duplicates.
What we really need here is an entirely new emphasis to reduce the need
for "reporting duplicates"! How about credits for revising seriously
deficient or erroneous master bib. records in OCLC so that they *can* be
recognized as duplicates by OCLCs automated matching algorithms?
Some credits for taking the time to change access points (formerly known
simply as headings? ) on *all* related bibs. (not just those in