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 our "own" 
collections) when [for example] "undifferentiated" names are made distinct 
would help, too.


  John G. Marr
  Univ. of New Mexico
  Albuquerque, NM 87131
  [log in to unmask]
  [log in to unmask]

     ** Forget the "self"; forget the "other"; just
consider what goes on in between. **

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.