I agree with Bill Drew that the problem of less-complete serials records
on OCLC does not seem to improve over the years.  This problem is not
restricted to serials however--it is also common in other formats.  Much work
still needs to be done to assure a high level of shared records--a common
standard.

Cataloging decisions, particularly about level of cataloging, are local,
of course, and usually involve some local perceptions of cost-benefit.
Serials are, perhaps, more susceptible to less-complete cataloging
treatment because many libraries did not have a policy of cataloging
and classification but relied on Kardexes, finding lists, etc.,in the
age of card catalogs.  As we all know, we carried the card mentality
over into the OPAC era so I assume that many libraries which previously
did not do full cataloging for in-house use do not see the utility of
doing it for someone else's benefit.

The only solution I can see, short of draconian penalties for OCLC/RLIN
members who contribute less-complete (or, worse, totally inaccurate)
records, is for each library to take the responsibility for creating
and inputting the best records it can.  That, combined with the efforts
of the CONSER heroes and some serious lobbying at ALA to raise
consciousness of the need for better and more complete records, is probably
the limit of what can be done in a democracy.

Thomas Sanders, Serials, Auburn University, AL (tsanders@auducvax)