[Libs-Or] IFC Tuesday Topic: Rating and Labeling Systems and Our Library Catalogs
Emily O'Neal
emilyo at dpls.lib.or.us
Tue Jan 27 07:23:06 PST 2026
Hi all,
For January's Tuesday Topic, provided to you by the Intellectual Freedom Committee, we share with you the following:
[cid:fae51b5d-2f0c-4d75-85bf-a821ebf22069]
Rating and Labeling Systems and Our Library Catalogs
January 2026
Welcome to Tuesday Topics, a monthly series covering topics with intellectual freedom implications for libraries of all types. Each message is prepared by a member of OLA's Intellectual Freedom Committee (IFC) or a guest writer. Questions can be directed to the author of the topic or to the IFC.
Please use the linked headings below to navigate between each part of this guide.
Rating and Labeling Concerns in Libraries<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tXPKcbCn51VkoFrea2tDWj0WnqgDHF9x/edit?pli=1#heading=h.mc24af2f7q45>
Prevalence<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tXPKcbCn51VkoFrea2tDWj0WnqgDHF9x/edit?pli=1#heading=h.elfsoey35hh7>
Removal Options<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tXPKcbCn51VkoFrea2tDWj0WnqgDHF9x/edit?pli=1#heading=h.7nmbce8l4w0d>
Conclusion<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tXPKcbCn51VkoFrea2tDWj0WnqgDHF9x/edit?pli=1#heading=h.otpx6ww9jezz>
Appendix A: Common Fields to Review<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tXPKcbCn51VkoFrea2tDWj0WnqgDHF9x/edit?pli=1#heading=h.kmj9fiumug2x>
Appendix B: Global Fix Commands<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tXPKcbCn51VkoFrea2tDWj0WnqgDHF9x/edit?pli=1#heading=h.xj0jqph6bajg>
Rating and Labeling Concerns in Libraries
In today’s Tuesday Topic, the Intellectual Freedom Committee (IFC) would like to shed light on the concern and impact of rating systems and warning labels on materials, and the prevalence of those systems in our library cataloging records.
As outlined by an ALA interpretation<https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/labelingratingsystems> of the Library Bill of Rights<https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill>, rating and labeling systems, when applied as a way to warn customers of the material content, conflict with some core tenets of the library profession, including anti-censorship. These systems can raise concerns over a chilling effect with our customers, and when systems stray from a viewpoint-neutral organizational system, create bias within our catalogs.
As stated by the ALA interpretation regarding labeling and rating systems:
Labeling Systems:
“Prejudicial labels are used to try to influence opinions or behaviors and restrict access, which is a form of censorship. The ALA opposes using labels to bias people’s views about library resources. These types of labels might be based on a value judgment about:
*
the content;
*
language;
*
themes; or
*
the background or views of the creator.
These labels often mark materials as inappropriate or offensive for certain groups of users. They are used to warn, discourage, or block access…Libraries that use prejudicial labeling assume they know what is appropriate for users. They also assume people need guidance in deciding what ideas to explore. The ALA opposes prejudicial labeling. Everyone has the right to form their own opinions about what they choose to read, listen to, or watch.”
Rating Systems:
“Rating systems are tools or labels designed to guide people on whether materials are suitable or appropriate. The creators of these systems assume there is someone who can decide what is right for others. They also assume that people want or need help choosing what to access….
…Using, enforcing, or approving of rating systems violates the Library Bill of Rights. It may also be unconstitutional if it restricts someone’s access to library materials or resources. If a law requires libraries to enforce rating systems, the library leadership should seek legal advice to understand how it will affect library operations.”
Unfortunately, rating systems are often automatically applied to our standard cataloging records and are becoming more and more invasive and difficult to remove. Regarding the ratings being added to our bibliographic records, ALA states:
“Some libraries add ratings in their bibliographic records because they accept standard records that include them [emphasis added]. Others do so to provide as much information about the resource as possible. Including rating systems in library catalogs can conflict with intellectual freedom principles. Cataloging best practices do not require libraries to include ratings. If ratings are included, the source of the rating should be clear to users. Including ratings without proper attribution is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights. The library should not endorse rating systems and rating systems should never be used to restrict access to materials based on the age of a user. Such restrictions may violate the First Amendment rights of minors.”
When talking about cataloging, it can be difficult to discuss MARC records without going into “cataloging speak.” However, this topic should be understood by and be approachable to catalogers and non-catalogers alike. A helpful way to think about our catalogs and cataloging records is that they are an extension of our library, and the language and aids used within this system reflect on the overall organization. Because of this, we should be keenly aware of the language and aids we are endorsing within our records.
The remainder of this article will take you through the prevalence of these rating systems being automatically applied to our standard library records and will provide some ideas on how to remove them from your library catalogs.
Prevalence
Warnings, labels, and rating systems are appearing more frequently and being applied across a variety of fields and formats. It is hard to ignore that these tools may serve as mechanisms for censorship or to discourage the use of certain materials. As a result, it is increasingly important for cataloging professionals to recognize these labels and applications and actively work to prevent such censoring tools from being embedded in our catalogs.
Within our records, there are common areas to spot the automatic application of rating and labeling systems. Specifically, there are notes fields, found in the 500 range, where a cataloger can add notes about the specific title they are cataloging.
One of the fields actually dedicated to these types of ratings is the 521: Target Audience Note<https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd521.html>. As stated by the Library of Congress, the intention of this field is for “information that identifies the specific audience or intellectual level for which the content of the described item is considered appropriate.” As intellectual freedom advocates, the IFC would urge folks to use this field with caution. Decisions about whether materials fit within the scope of a library's collection are made at the selection stage. Beyond that, it's not the library's role to determine whether materials are appropriate for any specific customer or user.
Common applications within this field include:
*
MPAA ratings – For more information on the concerns of MPAA, please see: Rated R for Ridiculous<https://www.latimes.com/news/la-oe-kirby24jan24-story.html>.
*
Grade ratings
*
Age ratings
*
Content warnings
Here are some examples of the types of ratings that are being automatically applied to our catalog records using the 521 field:
*
Ages 4-7.
*
For mature audiences ages 16+.
*
Suggested for mature readers.
*
Recommended for ages 8+.
*
Rated R.
*
TV-14: disturbing content, violence.
*
Rating: PG for epic battle action and violence.
*
Ages 12 and up.
*
Grade level: 5-8.
Another common field where bias content and restrictive notes are automatically added to our records is within the 520 note field<https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd520.html>. This is an unformatted note field to add any “summary, abstract, review or printed phrase describing the material.” Unfortunately, this is also where published content warnings are often applied. Here are some examples of content warnings that are often added to standard records:
*
Content warnings: Scenarios involving emotional abuse, obsessive compulsive disorder, anxiety, suicidal ideation, violence, murder, and mentions of a race massacre--|cAuthor's website.
*
Content warning: this book mentions homophobia, transphobia, toxic relationships, and sex--Copyright page.
*
The content warnings: for an animal death, profanity, and a surprise wedding--Preliminary page.
*
The content warnings for a cheating ex, profanity, and a surprise pregnancy--Preliminary page.
*
Content Warning: this graphic novel includes depictions of death.--Title page verso.
Finally, the 500 field<https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd500.html> for general notes, which is the most forgiving of note fields, is where “general information for which a specialized 5XX note field has not been defined.” Essentially, this is a field where a cataloger can put in anything deemed of importance not otherwise noted about the title. These fields often contain the summary of the book, but can deceivingly add warning labels to the end or within the summary. Here are some examples of warnings that are often automatically added to standard records:
*
While this story is generally light, I would be remiss if I did not include the following content warnings: detailed account of childhood abandonment, homelessness, a parent with early-onset Alzheimer's disease.--|cProvided by publisher.
*
Author's Note: This book is my love letter to both the autumn months and the late nineties. There are cozy harvest festivals, crunchy leaves, Halloween celebrations, and Thanksgiving pies! Be prepared for a couple of nineties rom-com clichés as well. I couldn't help myself. While this book is full of fun nostalgia and autumn spirit, I would also like to note the following content warnings: -Descriptive sex scenes -Explicit language -Death of a parent from heart attack (off-page) -Grieving of a loved one -Parental abandonment and estrangement -Divorce -Cheating (off-page; not main characters) Be kind to your heart and you read, friends. Now grab a blanket, light up a cozy candle, and revisit the autumn of 1997! xo Julie. O.
*
Content warning: Mention of drug use and overdose, bullying, and depression; mention of unsupportive family with LGBTQIA+ community; partner infidelity on-page (not main love story); includes early and frequent open-door love scenes between both a man and a woman and two women together.
*
This book contains explicit sexual content, profanity, a very possessive/morally gray antihero, and topics that may be sensitive to some readers.--Book content warning after title page.
*
His first, last, and only true love has always been rugby. Until now…Falling in love was the easy part, what comes next is the test...Friendship, first love, rising fame, horrifying secrets, and pain all fuel together as two teenagers from the opposite side of the tracks collide in Keeping 13, the concluding story for Johnny and Shannon. Based in Ireland, the Boys of Tommen series is bound to captivate and lure you into the world of rugby, love, and teenage heartbreak.***** Warning *****Some scenes in this book may be extremely upsetting for some readers. Due to its bad language and certain scenes, Keeping 13 is recommended for mature readers. [red added for emphasis]
Removal Options
While we recognize that it can be time-consuming and that library staff are already overburdened, removing warning labels and rating systems is pivotal to upholding the Library Bill or Rights. One reason that the task can be challenging is the inconsistent coding of these labels. They may appear in one or multiple fields (such as 521, 520, 500, and others) and can be added in different ways—sometimes as full field data, and other times embedded within existing field content (as shown above in red). This inconsistency makes identifying and removing these problematic additions cumbersome. Additionally, this should be an ongoing task as new materials are continually being added to the catalog.
Some options for cleaning up these statements include:
1.
Queries within the integrated library system (ILS) and global fixes
If the library can identify the fields and data to remove, and depending on the capabilities of its ILS, data queries and global fixes can be applied. Appendices A and B below list common fields to review and suggest global deletions.
2.
Use of vendors and bibliographic profiles
Libraries can work with vendors to set up profile preferences and update records in bulk. While this option involves a cost, it can save significant staff time if budgets allow. Two examples of vendors offering these services are Backstage Library Works and BestMARC.
3.
Manual review by library staff
Records can be cleaned up one at a time by staff, though this is the most labor-intensive option.
Conclusion
As outlined by an ALA interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights, rating and labeling systems used to warn customers about material content conflict with core tenets of the library profession. These practices can create a chilling effect on user access to materials and, when they stray from a viewpoint-neutral organizational system, introduce bias into our catalogs. Increasingly, these labels and ratings are being added without our awareness, making it critical for library staff to pay attention and to take action. By implementing strategies such as global fixes, vendor support, or manual review, we can ensure our catalogs remain neutral, accurate, and free from censorship. Protecting the integrity of our metadata is not just a technical task—it is a fundamental responsibility in upholding the values of our profession.
Appendix A: Common Fields to Review
Field
Command
Data
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
teen
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
heavy themes
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
emotional abuse
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
self-harm
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
sexual
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
nudity
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
coarse language
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
mature
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
graphic scenes
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
suicide
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
violence
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
strong language
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
recommended for
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
grade
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
grades
Bibliographic
Note
Has
mature readers
Bibliographic
Note
Has
mature audience
Bibliographic
Note
Has
recommended reading age
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
"m"
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
"t"
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
appeals to
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
audience:
Bibliographic
Note
Has
content warning
Bibliographic
Note
Has
content note
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
and up
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
& up
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
reading age
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
disturbing images
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
gore
Bibliographic
Note
Has
nc-17
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
interest level
Bibliographic
Note
Has
reading level
Bibliographic
Note
Has
suitable for
Bibliographic
Note
Has
t+
Bibliographic
Note
Starts with
ot
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
t,
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
t.
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
tv
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
pg
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
m.
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
ages
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
for teen audiences
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
young adult
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
for adult audiences
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
intended audience
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
mpaa
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
mpa
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
older
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
rated
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
adult
Bibliographic
Note
Has
explicit content
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
explicit
Bibliographic
Note
Has
parental advisory
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
aged
Bibliographic
Marc Field 521
Has
rating
Appendix B: Global Fix Commands
Field Index
Field
Field Data Has
Function
Note
521
teen
Delete
Note
521
adult
Delete
Note
521
age
Delete
Note
521
ages
Delete
Note
521
grade
Delete
Note
521
grades
Delete
Note
521
MPAA
Delete
Note
521
MPA
Delete
Note
521
rated
Delete
Note
521
rating
Delete
Note
521
older
Delete
Note
521
young adult
Delete
Note
521
appropriate
Delete
Note
521
sex
Delete
Note
521
nudity
Delete
Note
521
abuse
Delete
Note
521
violence
Delete
Note
521
language
Delete
Note
521
disturbing images
Delete
Note
521
gore
Delete
Note
521
suicide
Delete
Note
521
mature
Delete
Note
521
gore
Delete
Note
any
explicit
Delete
Note
any
parental advisory
Delete
Note
any
content warning
Delete
Note
any
content note
Delete
Emily O’Neal, M.L.S.
Technical Services Manager
Deschutes Public Library
(541) 617-7061
emilyo at deschuteslibrary.org<mailto:emilyo at deschuteslibrary.org>
http://www.deschuteslibrary.org<http://www.deschuteslibrary.org/>
[Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services Logo]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/libs-or/attachments/20260127/70dcecf6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 280698 bytes
Desc: image.png
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/libs-or/attachments/20260127/70dcecf6/attachment.png>
More information about the Libs-Or
mailing list