Thanks, Ben! I never thought that it might have been a 2.0 thing, and wondered how I could never noticed this before. I realize now that my favorite Evergreen sites have all upgraded since I last looked at this.
On the topic of grouping records and the language of FRBR, check out j.weinheimer's video "Conversation between a patron and the library catalog" that's been making the rounds: http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/12351402/conversation-between-a-patron-and-the-library-catalog-short -- Elizabeth Thomsen, Member Services Manager NOBLE: North of Boston Library Exchange 26 Cherry Hill Drive Danvers MA 01923 Blog: http://www.noblenet.org/ethomsen/ E-mail: [email protected] On Sat, September 10, 2011 4:30 pm, Ben Shum wrote: > Hi Elizabeth, > > Unfortunately, I can confirm that this bug is known to exist for awhile > now. It started when some new code was added to the OPAC in 2.0 to display > copy info in the results summary page. > > I can't remember if there's an active bug ticket on the issue yet but will > check Launchpad later for this topic and post back if no one else gets to > it first. > > -- Ben > -- > Sent from my Droid Incredible. > > Elizabeth Thomsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > We really like the option to group formats and editions, and the way it > allows users to place a single hold on multiple different bib records. > It's one of my favorite features in Evergreen. > > I have a question about the way the metarecords display in the results > list. In our own training system and the live Evergreen sites I've > checked, the metarecords show as having 0/0 copies, which certainly must > discourage patrons from placing holds on them. Logically, shouldn't > these copy numbers be aggregated from all the bib records? And if they > can't be, is there any way to suppress the display of the copy numbers for > the metarecords? No copy number information seems much better than wrong > copy number information, especially when 0 makes these look like hopeless > for holds when the metarecords actually increase the chances that the user > will get a copy of the book faster than if they choose only a single bib > record. > > It's possible I'm missing something obvious here, in which case I hope > someone will enlighten me! > > -- > Elizabeth Thomsen, Member Services Manager > NOBLE: North of Boston Library Exchange > 26 Cherry Hill Drive > Danvers MA 01923 > Blog: http://www.noblenet.org/ethomsen/ > E-mail: [email protected] > > > > >
