We are new consortium using Polaris/Vega and are running into this issue very often. It seems by default Vega rolls up titles even when there is not enough information to make an exact work match for example in single word titles without authors like travel guides (e.g. Austria), or movies (e.g. Aladdin), The recommendation from support is to add additional information to the title in the bib record to make them unique. Some of these changes are not within national /international cataloging standards and just mess up the records, plus it is also not feasible to retroactively or proactively do so an all titles that are or could be affected. It would be better to by default not roll up the titles unless there is enough information to make an exact work match or use additional parameters to improve the matches.

We are brand new, but have already encountered this with illustrated/abridged children's versions of novels. People place holds on Harry Potter or A Tale of Two Cities and get a child's version when they wanted the original novel.

As others have already said, this logic for matching needs to be enhanced. Editing MARC records to change the title is not a best practice in any way. There needs to be more fields involved to establish a match.

We have run into this a lot also, and it hit us for a title where there were 2 books with the same title, both juvenile, different publishers, dates, ISBNs, content, but no author and a short title.
The "solution" proposed was essentially to break our cataloging (again-this is a recurrent theme with Vega). That isn't good enough. We shouldn't have to keep breaking cataloging rules to make the software work. The software needs to be able to handle these kinds of titles.

We only use 3 target audiences here (juvenile, adolescent and adult) so relying on that subfield would not solve this issue for us. But adding additional fields as criteria for determining whether tiles should roll up or not - a series field, a 246, a 250, publisher - would help a lot! Fodor's Paris and Lonely Planet Paris are not the same and the fact that they roll up in our system is a real problem.

We do not like having to edit MARC records in ways that aren't correct to ensure that items don't roll up erroneously. We are doing this by adding things that we will definitely want to remove once this issue is fixed. But we can't leave them like this, as we need to make sure that our patrons can properly access the materials in our catalog.

This has been an issue for us across the board: Juvenile and beginning reader items (such as the Boxcar Children series) are rolling up together. Picture books that have been rereleased as toddler versions are all rolling up. And young adult versions of adult material such as Trever Noah's book are rolling up into one. I second the idea of including the audience field as an additional facet to separate out items based on the same material, keeping the title but not matching it well enough to suffice if someone wanted the original item.

We've noticed this issue particularly with our travel guides. Our travel guides are cataloged as serials, so items linked to each bib includes volume information to allow patrons to place holds on specific editions in Vega.

While patrons can place holds on specific "editions" in Vega and in turn see the volumes available for that "edition", if a patron attempts to place a hold on the work level, there is no clear indication which "edition", or which travel guide, they are placing a hold on, since the volumes available to select from are pulled from each "edition". Additionally, not all items with volume data are available via the dialog box.

Finally, while the majority of the records that roll up in this scenario are travel guides, some of these records include serial records for government documents.

We are consistently running into problems with picture books and easy reader editions of the same title rolling up together. Since the author and title fields are identical it will not separate them and it's very confusing to the public and staff. I have made sure to add a 250 field to show the edition, but this is only helpful if the user selects the edition information view which is an extra step.