Scott,

It's not that you can't have a hybrid, but that FIFO sites will end up
getting their holds prioritized over proximity-based sites if there is
resource sharing between them, all else being equal, as FIFO only cares
about request time and proximity cares about "closeness".  Having just one
or the other in use means nobody gets the short end of the stick.

HTH,


--
Mike Rylander
 | President
 | Equinox Open Library Initiative
 | phone:  1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
 | email:  mi...@equinoxinitiative.org
 | web:  http://equinoxinitiative.org

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 8:30 AM, scott.tho...@sparkpa.org <
scott.tho...@sparkpa.org> wrote:

> Another interesting issue was raised in this discussion. Our consortium is
> all proximity because we were told that, if org units within a consortium
> plan to resource share, they must all be FIFO or proximity, but it appears
> some of you are hybrids. Can I assume you do not resource share at all or
> do not do so beyond the local library system?
>
> Thank you,
> Scott
>
>
>
>
>
> Scott Thomas
>
> Executive Director
>
> *PaILS / SPARK*
>
> (717) 873-9461
>
> scott.tho...@sparkpa.org
>
> [image: Description: Description: Training | SPARK – Pennsylvania's
> Statewide Library System] <http://www.palibrary.org/pails/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Open-ils-general [mailto:open-ils-general-
> boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] *On Behalf Of *Diane Disbro
> *Sent:* Monday, November 27, 2017 8:30 PM
> *To:* Evergreen Discussion Group <open-ils-general@list.
> georgialibraries.org>; ME list serv <evergr...@lists.mobiusconsortium.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Catalog holds status display - Hold
> queue and potential copies
>
>
>
> I am very interested to hear if someone has done something with this other
> than try to explain to disgruntled patrons why they see in their online
> account that they are next in the queue for an item but they wait weeks or
> months to get it.
>
>
>
> Thank you, Josh, for asking.
>
>
> Diane Disbro
>
> Circulation Coordinator/Branch Manager
>
> Union Branch
>
> Scenic Regional Library
>
> 308 Hawthorne Drive
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=308+Hawthorne+Drive%0D+%0D+%0D+Union,+MO+%C2%A0+%C2%A0+63084&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Union, MO
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=308+Hawthorne+Drive%0D+%0D+%0D+Union,+MO+%C2%A0+%C2%A0+63084&entry=gmail&source=g>
>   63084
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=308+Hawthorne+Drive%0D+%0D+%0D+Union,+MO+%C2%A0+%C2%A0+63084&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> (636) 583-3224
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Josh Stompro <stomp...@exchange.larl.org>
> wrote:
>
> Hello, Those of you that use age hold protection and non FIFO best hold
> selection sort order, what have you done with the status column of holds in
> your catalog.  We just noticed that it is showing the FIFO queue position
> for holds, along with all potential copies.  This gives users bad info
> since for us holds are sometimes filled in FIFO order for some orgs, and
> are filled based on proximity for other locations.  And since one org uses
> age hold protection, the total copy count isn’t accurate either since half
> the copies might be age hold protected so they cannot fill the users holds.
>
>
>
> Did you just remove that section from templates/opac/parts/hold_status.tt2?
> Did you modify it in some way?  I would like to see examples of what you
> changed it to if you changed it.
>
>
>
> Should the potential copies count exclude copies that are age hold
> protected and cannot be captured for that hold?  Right now it pulls from
> hold copy map, but it looks like restricting the copy count based on the
> age hold protection might be possible to add.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Josh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lake Agassiz Regional Library - Moorhead MN larl.org
>
> Josh Stompro     | Office 218.233.3757 EXT-139 <(218)%20233-3757>
>
> LARL IT Director | Cell 218.790.2110 <(218)%20790-2110>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to