Hello James, I have to agree with your assessment that blame lies with Reed Elsevier. It's a classic case of "garbage in, garbage out." EBSCO has simply taken what they were given and loaded it onto their product without checking it or enhancing it.
I don't know if you have a subscription to the online version of VARIETY, but all the problems you mentioned in your earlier post can be found in the online version of VARIETY. You cannot find online the review for BABY FACE, for instance. Although I checked the old print version of the VARIETY reviews and it was reviewed by them and is in the print edition. The same is true with the posting dates for when the reviews were added to the online database. All films have a date of January 1, followed by the date of their initial release. There are a few exceptions: they have pulled the reviews for the films that won the Oscar for Best Picture and some of the AFI top 100 films and have included the full text review for those films plus the date of the initial review is accurate. Also, the online version features thousands of reviews but they contain excerpts of the review rather than the entire review as it was printed originally. I'm assuming this new product does the same things. So, as you say, the only reliable source is the earlier print release of the collected film reviews. Philip Hallman Film Studies Librarian University of Michigan Donald Hall Collection/ Hatcher Graduate Library 330 E. Liberty Street Michigan Square Bldg, 4th floor Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734/615-0445 From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steffen, James M Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 1:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Videolib] Problems with Variety Movie Reviews in Film and Television Literature Index Dear Colleagues: I haven't heard back from EBSCO yet, but in the meantime I have some further information about Variety reviews. Proquest's Research Library also has a "Variety Review Database," but likewise it is plagued with missing titles and incorrect review dates. In addition, the browsing interface is nonsensical - for older years it displays links to only one or two months, most commonly January. As a result, I cannot recommend it either. FIAF and the Film and Television Literature Index both index citations (but not full text) for Variety reviews as far back as the Seventies. Of course, for the Film and Television Literature Index the exact coverage depends on which version you use, EBSCO's or the free version covering 1976-2001. The *only* reliable resource for pre-Seventies Variety reviews that I'm aware of is the print collection published by Garland. Part of the blame surely lies with Reed Elsevier for supplying bad data to EBSCO and Proquest, but it is also clear that neither provider checked the integrity of their data before putting their collections online. Best, James Steffen -- James M. Steffen, PhD Film and Media Studies Librarian Theater and Dance Subject Liaison Marian K. Heilbrun Music and Media Library Emory University 540 Asbury Circle Atlanta, GA 30322-2870 Phone: (404) 727-8107 FAX: (404) 727-2257 Email: [email protected] Web: www.jamesmsteffen.net From: Steffen, James M Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 4:16 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Problems with Variety Movie Reviews in Film and Television Literature Index Dear Colleagues: I want to bring your attention to some problems that I've identified so far with the "Variety Movie Reviews" feature of EbscoHost's Film and Television Literature with Full Text database. Have you or your library's users also encountered problems with it? Here are my observations: Many films that Variety reviewed are not listed at all. Examples include not only foreign films such as "The Color of Pomegranates" (reviewed as "Sayat Nova" on 6/21/1978) but Hollywood studio productions such as the classic "Baby Face" starring Barbara Stanwyck (reviewed 6/27/1933) and "On the Sunny Side" (reviewed 2/04/1942). Most (all?) of the older films incorrectly list January 1 for the review date. To give just one example, the record for "Magnificent Obsession" (reviewed 5/12/1954) lists a date of 1/1/1954. I've spot-checked films from other years, ranging from 1932 to 1987, and have found the same problem on a systematic basis: they list January 1 regardless of the actual review date. I'm not sure what year this problem gets resolved, but by some point in the 1990s it doesn't appear to be an issue any more. Lastly, Ebsco's indexing doesn't link up well between the main database content and the "Variety Movie Reviews" feature. The film "Asik Kerib"/"Ashik Kerib" (reviewed 9/14/1988) doesn't appear when searched in the "Variety Movie Reviews" search interface, but you can find a citation for the review using the default "new search" function. I have found quite a few other examples of this, also from different years. In other words, the different sections of the Film and Television Literature Index aren't talking to each other effectively. I think this is a serious problem: if a user is looking for Variety film reviews specifically, they will probably search first using the "Variety Movie Reviews" button, and they might assume that the citation isn't in the database at all when in fact you can find it in a different section. At any rate, I'd be curious to hear of any experiences you've had with the "Variety Movie Reviews" feature specifically or other aspects of Film and Television Literature with Full Text. Best, James Steffen -- James M. Steffen, PhD Film Studies and Media Librarian Theater and Dance Subject Liaison Marian K. Heilbrun Music and Media Library Emory University 540 Asbury Circle Atlanta, GA 30322-2870 Phone: (404) 727-8107 FAX: (404) 727-2257 Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Web: www.jamesmsteffen.net<http://www.jamesmsteffen.net> ________________________________ This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments).
VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and distributors.
