Thanks Elaine, I found out that the issue I was having with the specific title that seemed to fill the wrong hold was because our migrated holds all had a selection_depth of 1, and holds placed post migration have a selection depth of 0. We had the selection depth included in our Best Hold Selection Sort order, which was sorting the holds based on that, which was prioritizing the holds with a depth of 0. So the system was working exactly like it should, it just took me a while to figure it why.
I think the problem with checking in as a workstation for each location is that then the items would immediately fill holds and go onto the holdshelf. Notifying the patron that the item is ready, when it is really in transit. Maybe the capture local holds as transits checking mod would help with that. I wish there was a checkin mod like the Suppress Holds and Transit that was just suppresses holds, which would just place the items in transit back to their circ lib. We will try just sending the items without a transit, and see how that works out. Thanks for the info. Josh Stompro - LARL IT Director From: Open-ils-general [mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Hardy, Elaine Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 10:37 AM To: Evergreen Discussion Group Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] In-Process items, centralized cataloging, filling random holds, not in Best Hold Selection order Josh, While we don't do centralized cataloging for the entire consortium, individual systems catalog at their headquarters and then send the items to owning branches. The items are in process until they are received by circulation at each branch. That is how in process was designed to function originally. Some libraries run reports for items in process longer than the expected transit time to see if material has gone astray . Some libraries include an "invoice", based on a report,of the items included in a delivery for branches to acknowledge receipt. So you can send items still in process to locations and keep track of them; but you would need to use reports to assist. PINES libraries find that items rarely go astray - occasionally they might not make it into the delivery or are sent to the wrong branch. The most common problem is that they make it to the shelf at the correct location without being checked in. Running reports and shelf checking for items still in process should find most of the strayed items. If you do want to continue checking the items in at central cataloging, it may be best to set up workstations for the separate locations and check each location in using that workstation login. Elaine J. Elaine Hardy PINES & Collaborative Projects Manager Georgia Public Library Service 1800 Century Place, Ste 150 Atlanta, Ga. 30345-4304 404.235.7128 404.235.7201, fax eha...@georgialibraries.org<mailto:eha...@georgialibraries.org> www.georgialibraries.org<http://www.georgialibraries.org> www.georgialibraries.org/pines<http://www.georgialibraries.org/pines> From: Open-ils-general [mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Josh Stompro Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 3:15 PM To: Evergreen Discussion Group (open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org<mailto:open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org>) Subject: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] In-Process items, centralized cataloging, filling random holds, not in Best Hold Selection order Hello, I know I've heard mention of this issue, but I'm now trying to figure out how to deal with it and I cannot find a good explanation. We are a consolidated system and do centralized cataloging, and assign initial owning and circ locations when the items are received based on number of holds for each pickup location. So our normal process is to assign those locations for the items and then check in the items (at our Cataloging OU/workstation) so they will grab the holds and fill them. So the items are in "in processing" status and then get checked in. But the holds that are being grabbed seem to be somewhat random. In the latest test case, it is the hold with the largest hold ID number that is getting assigned to a copy, which is the last hold that was placed. So our Best Hold Selection sort order for opportunistic holds is being ignored, in many different ways. It should be filling the oldest hold first when all the proximities are the same, but it isn't. I've tried the retarget local holds, but the holds are not local, so that doesn't seem to do anything for us. I've tried setting a new Best Hold Selection sort order based on hprox (Home proximity) on the cataloging OU so that the holds would be evaluated based on owning location -> pickup location proximity, but that doesn't change the behavior at all. The first hold that gets selected is based on it having the highest hold ID. It seems like it would work to just send the items to the correct owning location, without checking them in, but that seems wrong, there would be no record of the transit which would make it harder to find items that get lost on the way. Can someone point me to the correct way to deal with this, or where the issue is discussed? Thanks Lake Agassiz Regional Library - Moorhead MN larl.org Josh Stompro | Office 218.233.3757 EXT-139 LARL IT Director | Cell 218.790.2110
