I concur with Julie, this compilation work that Chris has done, and continues to do, is worthwhile. I shared with my supervisor and she was pleased with the work of the maps cataloging team here reflected in what we've done via the stats. That said, I also completely understand Chris' message about taking things with a grain of salt so to speak, we are one of those institutions who tend to catalog at the sheet level even for major series and so that gets reflected in our stats I'm sure. I actually found table II to be more compelling because of the sharp drop in new (original) records done by us -- it reflects our large effort to catalog carto resources for two big projects in which there was a lot of copy available for us to use (but also needed a lot of enhance work simultaneously), one of which we are almost done with -- cataloging all of our FEMA flood insurance maps, a project that has been underway since I believe 2012. 

So, thank you Chris for this work in compiling map cataloging stats, it IS appreciated! 

Paige 
----- Original Message -----

From: "Julie Sweetkind-Singer" <[log in to unmask]> 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 4:52:14 PM 
Subject: Re: map cataloging statistics, 2015 

Chris, 

This is fantastic. Thanks for continuing to compile this list. I'm in the middle of trying to replace a cataloger and this type of information is extremely useful for me to make a case that this position is needed. 

Best, 

Julie 

*** 
Julie Sweetkind-Singer 
Assistant Director of Geospatial, Cartographic and Scientific Data & Services 
Head Librarian, Branner Earth Sciences Library & Map Collections 
Stanford University 
397 Panama Mall; MC 2211 
Stanford, CA 94305 
(650)725-1102 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Christopher Winters" <[log in to unmask]> 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 12:47:09 PM 
Subject: map cataloging statistics, 2015 



I started compiling statistics showing the number of "cartographic-materials" 
records on OCLC by institution in 2001 and have kept generating similar statistics 
every year since. 


I've shared the numbers with some of you over the years, and I sent them to MAPS-L 
in 2007. It seemed time to share them again. The 2015 numbers are at 


http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/collections/maps/map_cataloging_stats_2005-2015.pdf 



If you're interested, you might want to check the MAPS-L archives for my comments on 
the statistics then, as well as other folks' observations. Briefly, these statistics are 
only a measure of libraries' success in getting records to OCLC. The numbers are 
heavily influenced by many factors, including, for example, how libraries treat sets. 
Institutions that "analyze" sets of topos, nautical charts, and flood insurance maps 
are going to be overrepresented in proportion to how much material they've actually 
cataloged. Libraries that don't even analyze monographic series (like the USGS I 
series) will be underrepresented. There are numerous other factors that affect these 
numbers. The table probably needs dozens of footnotes explaining odd figures. 


Also, please forgive my focus on big U.S. libraries. If I were to start compiling similar 
figures today, I'd certainly include more institutions. 


You should realize that I've been compiling these statistics for annual reports. 
They're as accurate as I could make them, but of course I wouldn't have been as 
inclined to gather these numbers together if they didn't make the University of 
Chicago Map Collection look good. Be cynical if you want. It's very unlikely by the 
way that we'll be adding anything like as many records in future years. There are 
now only a few pockets of uncataloged materials in the collection. 


Do feel free to ask questions or to make comments. 


Chris Winters 
University of Chicago Library 
[log in to unmask]