Cataloging practice
Common Cataloging Mistakes and How to Catch Them
Many cataloging errors survive because each individual value looks reasonable. The useful question is whether the description, classification, item data, and label agree with one another and with the resource in hand.
A familiar title hides a different edition
Two books can share a title and author while differing in edition, format, contents, or publication details. Copying the first plausible record may produce a label that appears correct while the catalog describes a different object. Compare the edition statement and physical description before attaching a new item.
In a fictional exercise, place a first edition and a revised workbook side by side. Give a reviewer only the candidate record and ask which details establish the match. If the answer is merely “the title is the same,” the verification is incomplete.
A spreadsheet changes the notation
A numeric column can turn 020 into 20 or alter the display of a long class number. The resulting value may still pass through a label form because it is nonempty. Store notation and identifiers as text, and compare exported values with the source rather than trusting the spreadsheet’s appearance.
Create a small preflight sample containing leading zeros, decimals, commas in titles, and non-English names. Reopen the exported CSV and inspect those rows. This catches data-conversion problems before they become dozens of incorrect labels.
An automatic Cutter bypasses local review
A generated candidate can conflict with existing filing order or duplicate another work’s mark. The two-digit option may also shorten a mark more than the local policy allows. Compare the result with nearby records and check how your institution handles works sharing a title initial.
In LC mode, another common mistake is entering an already complete call number into the classification portion and then adding a new generated author mark. Identify the segments before assembly. The tool’s use of Cutter-Sanborn data in LC display mode is a further reason to verify the approved LC number independently.
The catalog and physical label diverge
Moving an item to reference shelves without updating its catalog location creates a findability problem even if the class is correct. Changing a catalog number without replacing the label causes the opposite mismatch. Treat a move or reclassification as one coordinated update with a final physical check.
- Compare the item with its bibliographic description.
- Compare approved notation with the export.
- Compare generated output with approved notation.
- Compare the printout with the item record.
- Compare the item’s actual shelf position with the public display.
When an error is found, correct its source as well as its visible symptom. Handwriting a correction on a label while leaving the wrong export in the print queue invites the same mistake during the next batch. Keep a brief correction note where staff can find it.
Frequently asked questions
Can an attractive label still be wrong?
Yes. Formatting does not establish a match to the edition, verify the subject class, or check local shelf order.
Where should I start when several labels are wrong?
Trace one affected item from source record to export to generated output to printout, and identify the first point where the data changes incorrectly.