https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=39931
--- Comment #2 from shahrum <shahrum.al...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #1) > I'd argue that it should use the normalized date in 008 and it might do that > already. Have you verified you have 008 (Date 1) in your data set correctly? > 264 is repeatable, selecting the right one for sorting is not trivial. Thank you for your response, Katrin! You're absolutely right that the 008 field (Date 1) is a standard place for publication year in MARC records. However, in our case, we rarely use the 008 field because most of our records are either locally created or imported without full fixed fields. We primarily rely on variable fields like `260$c` for the publication year. In our workflow, we use `260$c` as the main source for publication year. this is how many libraries handle manually entered records where 008 may not always be filled out completely. We noticed that while the data in `260$c` is properly stored and can be extracted/sorted via direct SQL query, the OPAC does not sort these results correctly by publication year. This suggests there may be an issue with how the OPAC indexing layer (Zebra/Elasticsearch) handles sorting based on variable MARC fields like `260$c`. Is there a way to ensure that Koha's OPAC search layer reliably uses `260$c` for sorting by publication year? Any guidance or insights from your experience would be greatly appreciated! thank you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
