Although I've been known to use "Transfer All Title Holds" when cleaning up duplicate on-order records, I agree that it has the potential to cause harm. There are better and safer ways. My vote is to remove it.
Thanks, Lise Keppler On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Boyer, Jason A <jboy...@library.in.gov> wrote: > Dangerous may be a little strong, but I’m the one who used “havoc” when > referring to it, so what do I know. :) I’m for removing it. > > Jason > > -- > Jason Boyer > Indiana State Library > 140 North Senate Ave. > Indianapolis, IN 46204 > http://library.in.gov/ > 317-234-2128 > > On Aug 5, 2014, at 8:13 AM, Kathy Lussier <kluss...@masslnc.org> wrote: > > Hi Rogan, > > Frankly, I worry this is starting to get into the territory of "let's add > another permission (or YAOUS) for every eventuality no matter how obscure." > > > Yes, I think I agree with you here, which is why I'm suggesting that > rather than adding a permission, we remove that menu entry altogether. > Since holds are already transferred as part of a record merge and there is > another method available to transfer all holds that requires the user to > actively select those holds, it seems to be an unnecessary and potentially > dangerous option to me. Dangerous may be too strong of a word, but it is > something that is problematic when it is accidentally selected. > > Kathy > > Kathy Lussier > Project Coordinator > Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative(508) 343-0128kluss...@masslnc.org > Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier > > On 8/4/2014 8:44 PM, Rogan Hamby wrote: > > Frankly, I worry this is starting to get into the territory of "let's add > another permission (or YAOUS) for every eventuality no matter how > obscure." > > Some features I think in the long run complicate our lives > (documentation, testing, development) more than they improve functionality. > > > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Kathy Lussier <kluss...@masslnc.org> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I wanted to seek some feedback on Launchpad bug 1350377 >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1350377. >> >> The bug seeks an additional permission to be used with the "Transfer All >> Title Holds" option in the client. However, I was wondering if there would >> be any support from removing that option from the client altogether. >> >> Here's the issue: >> >> When you are in a bib record in the staff client, you have the option to >> transfer *all* title holds to another bib record. You first need to mark >> the other bib record as a holds transfer destination. >> >> However, you also have the option to transfer one or any number of >> selected holds to the marked bib record from the holds view of the bib >> record. You could transfer just one hold here or you could select them all >> if you really needed to transfer all holds. The benefit of using this >> option is that the user must actively select the holds that will be >> transferred. >> >> I personally think providing a blanket "Transfer All Title Holds" option >> in the client is dangerous, even if there were a separate permission for >> it, and unnecessary since there are other methods available in the staff >> client to accomplish the same task. Making it even more dangerous is the >> fact that the "Actions for this Record" menu that contains this option to >> transfer all holds is still available in the holds view of the bib record, >> which is where you go to transfer selected holds (see the screencast at >> http://www.screencast.com/t/ifHhJHNqq). It is very easy to mistakenly >> select this option when you are trying just to transfer just one hold. In >> fact, I accidentally selected it when I was just testing out the transfer >> holds scenario a few minutes ago. >> >> During a brief discussion in IRC on this issue, it was mentioned that >> possible use cases for the "transfer all title holds" option are: >> >> 1. When staff are manually merging bib records. The client bib merge >> option automatically merges holds, but there may be reasons staff merge the >> records without using that option. >> 2. In cases where there are orphaned holds on a record that no longer has >> copies to fill the hold. >> >> Since I think both of these use cases could be accommodated by using the >> option where you transfer selected holds, I wanted to see if others would >> support removing the "Transfer All Title Holds" option. Is there anyone who >> uses this option with some frequency who thinks it should continue to be >> available? >> >> Thanks! >> Kathy >> >> -- >> Kathy Lussier >> Project Coordinator >> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative >> (508) 343-0128 >> kluss...@masslnc.org >> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier >> >> > > > -- > > Rogan Hamby, MLS, CCNP, MIA > Managers Headquarters Library and Reference Services, > York County Library System > > “You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to > suit me.” > ― C.S. Lewis <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1069006.C_S_Lewis> > > > > -- Lise Keppler Forsyth County Public Library 660 W 5th St Winston Salem NC 27101 336-703-3070