Another day, another release of a "new" print collection comparison tool for libraries. Library Admin responsible for collections get really excited about these things, but no one bothers to ask the metadata folks if they're going to be any good. Crap metadata = crap comparisons

When you neglect your catalouging and metadata departments for long periods of time, those large scale data comparisons are only going to be as good as the metadata. I wouldn't trust the data 100%. Especially when making decisions about preservation. (but we all do it anyway)

And I think a lot of that "but we all do it anyway" is a testament to how awesomely skilled your Metadata folks are at finding ways to help do those comparisons. But don't get me wrong - it still is not a reliable method, in my opinion.

A lot of it becomes a manual, time intensive process. Particularly if you want to do it right. All of this has a lot of implications for some of our long term collections strategies on a national scale.

Don't get me wrong. When I say I wouldn't trust the data 100%, what I'm saying is that while we get the MAJORITY of it right (in most cases), the stuff that is wrong can cause a massive headache and mess to untangle after something has been matched for comparison purposes.