Last Updated: 04 Aug, 2016     Views: 17

This is the explanation from the vendor

The date sorting issue is a result of having multiple dates associated with a single merged record. When we take each individual record (called “participant records”) and merge them into a single record there can be a range of dates associated with that record. This is a result of strong matching across the participant records that indicate that even though there may be disparity in dates, they are the same record. Examples of causes for this disparity can range from incorrect date information (a book published in 2014 is marked as being published in 1014) or actual publication dates that are for the same content but different (a magazine recently celebrated 75 years in circulation by reprinting some important articles from their past, resulting in an article from 1950 also having a publish date of 2015).

In the User Interface we do not display all dates associated with a record—we pick one. We also pick a single date to use for sorting. Sometimes these dates are not the same, so for the reprinted article we may sort on 1950 but display 2015, or in your case, displaying 1992 but there is a hidden associated date that is more recent. This is a known item, and unfortunately it is a large issue to address. It is at the top of the list for consideration to address, but due to the size of the effort I have not been able to schedule a fix yet. I will get this addressed as soon as possible.

Until this issue is resolved just ignore the relatively few anomalous records that appear in a date limited search.

Related Topics

Contact Us

Townsville +61 7 4781 5500 or ext 15500 (select option 2)

Cairns +61 7 4232 1777 or ext 21777 (select option 2)