To follow up, I found the bug ticket on this particular issue described. I guess I was the original person who reported it to the community back in January 2011 when we were first testing Evergreen 2.0.
See here for bug details: https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/707757 Good to know that others are still interested in the "group formats and editions" option for the OPAC, I guess. -- Ben On Sep 10, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Elizabeth Thomsen wrote: > 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] >> >> >> >> >> > >
