Proliferation of 856 Fields in PUL Catalog Bib Records

[smallfind]

I've come across a number of examples where there seems to be an explosion of 856 fields linking to digital surrogates in the OPAC Bib records. For instance:

• https://catalog.princeton.edu/catalog/8540291/staff_view
• https://catalog.princeton.edu/catalog/8542043/staff_view

I had originally thought that these might be the result of MVWs and/ or multiple copies with the same Bib # in the system ... but following some of the links (easier in the non-staff vie if you hit "Back to item") doesn't lead to Bibs that are obviously relevant. At least as far as I can tell.

So:

• Am I correct?
• If so, any idea how this happened?
• Is the best way to fix the problem to get a cataloger to zap all of the 856 fields?
• If we just go through and delete all the 856 fields, is there the risk of deleting anything important? (If one of them is vital to connect the digital surrogate in Figgy, will it repopulate, based on the Figgy record?)

As ever, thanks for your patience!

[escowles]

@smallfind This is very weird! I assume there must have been a bad match of some kind, because the ARKs are clearly linked to different bib records. I think the best thing to do would be running a report of records with more than a small number (3?) ARKs and figuring out which ones are the right ones and deleting the rest.

I don't think any of this will break Figgy and the viewer showing up in the Catalog. It does a query in Figgy for any items linked to the bib record and so it should show the right viewer regardless of extraneous ARKs in the 856.

[smallfind]

Got it. Thanks!

I've "cleared" you and @tpendragon from this and assigned myself. I'll follow up with catalogn and ask them to either zap the offending fields or give me the go ahead to do so.

And throw in (for my future reference) that Bib 8540474 and 8533497 have the same problem.

[smallfind]

And--much to my embarrassment--I realize that my reading comprehension skills are apparently worthless. Yes, if you'd please run that report at some point, @escowles, I'd be v. grateful.

[smallfind]

OK. There's a new twist with these, @escowles : I've found a couple where, in the OPAC, not only are there multiple 856 fields but a rogue digital surrogate appears in an image viewer, below the correct one surrogate.

Here: https://catalog.princeton.edu/catalog/9985427283506421
And: https://catalog.princeton.edu/catalog/9985298813506421

I think this is new with Alma?