What is this “proximity” that people are talking about? I have been told that 
Evergreen doesn’t recognize geography. Are proximity and geography the same 
thing?

 

Diane Disbro

Circulation Coordinator/Branch Manager

Union Branch

Scenic Regional Library

308 Hawthorne Drive

Union, MO     63084

636-583-3224

 <mailto:ddis...@scenicregional.org> ddis...@scenicregional.org

www.scenicregional.org

 

 

From: Open-ils-general 
[mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Josh 
Stompro
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 10:58 AM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Catalog holds status display - Hold queue and 
potential copies

 

Hello Scott, we do resource share.  One of our systems is 3x larger than the 
other, so the smaller system uses age hold protection on their new items to 
keep them home for a while.  Otherwise we were seeing 4x more holds placed by 
the larger system which was pulling a disproportionate share of new material 
from the smaller system.  The smaller system also recently decided to use FIFO 
vs proximity for their holds, while the larger system is sticking with check-in 
proximity priority.  

 

Most of the highly sought after items that have lots of holds are new items in 
our experience, so the smaller system that is using FIFO will only fill their 
own customers holds in FIFO order until the age hold protection expires.  Once 
it expires then there is a chance that the larger system’s holds will get 
priority if they are older than the remaining smaller systems holds.  We don’t 
know if that is going to be a problem in actual usage yet.

 

Josh Stompro - LARL IT Director

 

From: Open-ils-general 
[mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of 
scott.tho...@sparkpa.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:31 AM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Catalog holds status display - Hold queue and 
potential copies

 

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

 <mailto:scott.tho...@sparkpa.org> scott.tho...@sparkpa.org

 <http://www.palibrary.org/pails/> Description: Description: Training | SPARK – 
Pennsylvania's Statewide Library System

 

 

 

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

Union, MO     63084

(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 <tel:(218)%20233-3757> 

LARL IT Director | Cell 218.790.2110 <tel:(218)%20790-2110>   

 

 

Reply via email to