Hi Johnnie, On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Pippin, Johnnie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben and all, > > Thank you for your valuable information. > > We have an issue with certain systems having holds placed but looking > outward to fulfill the hold within the consortium instead of first > searching the available hold within its owning system. > > Our configuration for searching placed holds should be as follows: > > Hold placed at branch > Search branch, not available > Search System, not available > Search Consortium > > That's the way the default hold setup works. It's very unlikely that proximity adjustment or best-hold sort order will help you here. However... > It seems that this works some of the time but not always. Proximity is key > for what we want accomplished. > > ... can you expand on what you mean by this? For instance, might the times when it is not working as you expect coincide with a hold being older than the "Holds: Soft stalling interval" time period? Or, might the now-available copies have come in to the pickup branch or system after the hold targeter ran or the specifically-targeted foreign copy was captured? Thanks, --Mike Thanks! > > - Johnnie > > "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him > absolutely no good." - Samuel Johnson > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Johnnie Pippin - NC Cardinal Consultant > State Library of North Carolina > 4640 Mail Service Center > Raleigh, NC 27699-4640 > [email protected] > Office: 919.807.7408 / Fax: 919.733.8748 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources > > Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of my > agency. Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to > the North Carolina Public Records law “NCGS.Ch. 132” and may be disclosed > to third parties by an authorized state official. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Open-ils-general [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 1:07 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Open-ils-general Digest, Vol 109, Issue 5 > > Send Open-ils-general mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-general > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than > "Re: Contents of Open-ils-general digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Best-Hold Selection Sort Order (Beth Longwell) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 10:17:59 -0700 > From: Beth Longwell <[email protected]> > To: Evergreen Discussion Group > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Best-Hold Selection Sort Order > Message-ID: > < > cacacn80maaphd3yifncvpzln3gf2gnm2whzwa2nmy3xfhpb...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Johnnie, > > We use it to prioritize hold fulfillment based on the way our courier is > set up, hoping to minimize transit time for the patron. > > Beth Longwell > Sage Library System > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Michele Morgan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Johnnie, > > > > NOBLE implemented "Traditional with Holds Always Go Home" Best-Hold > > Selection Sort Order systemwide so that items will always travel home > > if there are any holds for pickup at the owning library. > > > > We actually tweaked it a bit, removing approx and aprox. Since we do > > not adjust proximity, there's no need to include them. > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > Michele > > > > -- > > Michele M. Morgan, Technical Assistant North of Boston Library > > Exchange, Danvers Massachusetts [email protected] > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Ben Shum <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi Johnnie, > >> > >> Bibliomation implemented Best-Hold Selection Sort Order changes for > >> at least one member library that required a specific approach to > >> holds that differed from the rest of our consortium. I described > >> that use case in more detail in this post to the dev list a few years > >> ago ( > >> http://markmail.org/message/pdksulwazgwzlro4) and that led to the > >> feature's development too. Since implementation, we have had no > >> complaints about hold prioritization for the use case, so I consider > >> that a "Pro" of "it works for us" with no speakable "Cons" for now. > >> > >> Can you give us a little more information about what potential use > >> case are you hoping to achieve with the feature? Are you trying to > >> raise or prioritize holds for a given subset of libraries? Is it > >> based on geography, distance, political alliances? There are lots of > >> options and not all may result in optimal or expected outcomes... > >> > >> -- Ben > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Pippin, Johnnie < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Good morning, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> NC Cardinal is reviewing the Best-Hold Selection Sort Order for > >>> holds placed in our consortium and wanted to gather some information > >>> from the community before we move forward. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Has anyone implemented this process? If currently using, what are > >>> the pros and cons of the Best-Hold Selecting Sort Order? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Are there any major problems to be made aware of when using > >>> Best-Hold Selecting Sort Order? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> - Johnnie > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> "*The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him > >>> absolutely no good*." - Samuel Johnson > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> Johnnie Pippin - NC Cardinal Consultant > >>> > >>> State Library of North Carolina > >>> 4640 Mail Service Center > >>> Raleigh, NC 27699-4640 > >>> [email protected] > >>> > >>> Office: 919.807.7408 / Fax: 919.733.8748 > >>> > >>> [image: Cardinal][image: Cardinal 2] > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of > >>> my agency. Email correspondence to and from this address may be > >>> subject to the North Carolina Public Records law “NCGS.Ch. 132” and > >>> may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Benjamin Shum > >> Evergreen Systems Manager > >> Bibliomation, Inc. > >> 24 Wooster Ave. > >> Waterbury, CT 06708 > >> 203-577-4070, ext. 113 > >> > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20150701/6eb1cfe2/attachment.html > > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: image005.png > Type: image/png > Size: 9078 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: < > http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20150701/6eb1cfe2/attachment.png > > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: image006.png > Type: image/png > Size: 6813 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: < > http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20150701/6eb1cfe2/attachment-0001.png > > > > End of Open-ils-general Digest, Vol 109, Issue 5 > ************************************************ >
