========================================================================

MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L

 =======================================================================

Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005
From: HelenJane Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:  Records to Pieces Ratio

About 10 years ago the University of Florida Library did an inventory of how
many items the entire Library had in our backlog.  Over 50% of our map
collection was not cataloged so I was negotiating to acquire more cataloging
help.  To create a accurate but not overwhelming picture of our cataloging
needs, I had a thorough count done of the uncataloged items.  We did both
pieces and titles as I wanted to emphasize the smaller number so the backlog
did not look so overwhelming.  I had been told by someone at LC that the
number being used there for estimates was 4 sheets to one title.  However we
had so many topographic sets that I thought this couldn't be true.  The
final count of the uncataloged materials came out almost exactly 4 sheets to
1 title.

Still questioning this figure we did a count of one of every five drawers of
the cataloged items which included a lot of the old AMS topographic sets.
The average was almost 5 sheets per title.  Finally we have been keeping a
sheet and record count for all the maps we have been cataloging in the last
decade.  It is an average of 4 sheets per title.

The qualifiers: We catalog all large scale topographic maps at the set level
with only one title record.  This includes the USGS 1:24,000 topographic
maps for which there are est. 123 records.  Also the UF Map & Imagery
Library has over 500,000 maps.  There are variables that could occur based
on the size and nature of the collection.  One variable I should mention is
we did not count duplicate copies in the uncataloged materials or our drawer
counts.  It is possible a few second copies that were cataloged could have
crept into the count over the past decade as different catalogers were doing
the count.  However, we do not believe they would be statistically
significant.

So based on folklore, LC info, several complete counts and a fairly reliable
estimate; we feel comfortable using the 4 to 1 ratio for estimates.

Hope this is helpful.  From what I know of the University of Illinois Map
Library we are very similar in size and nature of materials.

Given how much our modern and antique map collections have grown in the last
decade, I would not like to take on this project again!
Helen

HelenJane Armstrong, PhD
Head, Map & Imagery Library
George A. Smathers Libraries
University of Florida
P.O. Box 117011
Gainesville, FL 32611-7011


-----Original Message-----
From: Angie Cope, American Geographical Society Library UWM
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 10:15 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: MAPS-L: Records to Pieces Ratio


 =======================================================================

MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L

 =======================================================================

Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005
From: Jenny Marie Johnson 
Subject: Records to Pieces Ratio

Hi.

This probably is one of those questions that can't be answered --
although for some reason I vaguely remember reading or hearing a
discussion about it.

Is there any kind of ratio that can be expected for the number of
bibliographic records to the number of pieces in a "typical," fully
cataloged map collection?  Is there any way of saying "Since we have
x,000 pieces we can expect to find y,000 map records in the online catalog?"

I'm not expecting there to be a truly scientific ratio!  Commonsense,
wisdom from the ages, or folklore/urban myth -- all ideas will be helpful!

Thanks!

Jenny Marie Johnson
Map and Geography Librarian and
Assoc. Professor of Library Administration

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

--