Single-record approach takes on a canceled package

Our EBSCO load was delayed this month, so the Factiva links are still in the catalog (we canceled Factiva as of the end of October). I removed the links in the A-to-Z administrator at the beginning of November. There were thousands of Factiva titles so I decided to wait for the EBSCO load make the corrections, though I did pick about 200 popular titles and removed their links manually. Now we have over 3,700 links that look useful, but are in fact dead ends.

Hypothetically: If we were using a single-record approach and had one 856 field in the bib record that linked to the A-to-Z list, would we have this problem?

I think we would have a slightly different problem. Instead of having a catalog full of links that don’t provide us access we would have some records whose 856 fields didn’t lead to any access. I suppose we would still have to wait for EBSCO’s load to remove the 856 field. There would still only be one list to update, but any casualties of the cancellation (titles not available through another resource) would still clog up the catalog for a couple weeks.

(Questions for later: Would the record still arrive in the load if we didn’t have any electronic holdings? How would we ensure that the MARC record would stay if there were only print holdings?)

If it were the only resource for online access, at least the patron would see a blank list instead of a link they would presume to work. If there were more than one resource, at least the canceled subscription wouldn’t be listed in the A-to-Z list.

Posted in Access, Single-record approach. Comments Off on Single-record approach takes on a canceled package
%d bloggers like this: