FWIW, there isn't any reason for patron data to be exposed and privacy
issue on a display level here. The privacy discussion is really a
distraction from the Awesome Box discussion in my opinion. Some libraries
may anonymize (or wipe) older data while others don't but that data
existing and using it under the hood is a totally different thing from
exposing it users (my point). Now if you do wipe it you obviously don't
want to suddenly have features that depend on it, an important point for
those who do wipe it (and I wonder if their libraries are expressly exempt
from record retention laws) but that was Kathy's point about
configurability. And even if you did use historical circulations
integrated for awesome box that doesn't mean it has to be used the same way
for all type of users with different anonymization of data. Of course, I
doubt that some who think their data is wiped understand that it probably
is not. Evergreen does not natively erase or anonymize old information,
it's just inaccessible to casual users, which is not the same as not
existing. That's a fairly common mistake for users not familiar with the
database layer.
Clear as mud? So, as I said I suspect that if we don't want to completely
derail this with tangents it's probably best to put the privacy issue aside
and look at Awesome box features not tied to patron specific data.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Ruth Frasur <
direc...@hagerstownlibrary.org> wrote:
> I don't have anything of value to add to this other than while, of course,
> I love the idea of reader recommendations and Awesome Box integration in
> any form, I also think there would HAVE to be some type of anonymizing
> (sp?) of patron data. I don't think this is impossible BUT, as Rogan has
> said, there is a definite danger of project creep. My suggestion, fwiw, is
> to find some first/second step for Awesome Box integration and focus more
> on building a foundation (that may or may not have truly visible/useful
> features for end users) on which others (or other projects) could expand.
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Rogan Hamby
> wrote:
>
>> I'm concerned with project creep as well as I noted in one of early
>> missives. If this is stored independent of patron data (which actually I
>> think it should) then I think we should also track circs since the feature
>> was turned on so it could say "3 out of 4" people found it awesome.
>>
>> Stepping back a bit to recommendations and anonymizing records, we don't
>> anonymize historical circs. We don't expose that data and take staff level
>> access to it pretty seriously. Due to varying state and county regulations
>> dictating minimum record retentions we're still at least 2 years out from
>> being to safely wipe our oldest records. Maybe more.
>>
>> And anonymizing it closes certain opportunities. Some are mundane like
>> addressing old conflicts and billing questions but those can be big in
>> their own right. As the circ manager who talks to the upset patron I may
>> have a different point of view on that. :)
>>
>> Analyzing circulation patterns is far more interesting though and I am
>> long term interested in recommendations. In the age of Anazin, Netflix and
>> everyone else this is not just valuable but expected. It's perhaps the
>> patron request I hear most.
>>
>> Coupled with some holds features it would be a great great boon for home
>> bound services which I feel are a critical function of libraries, at least
>> in my state where it's a strong traditional service. I assume elsewhere as
>> well though I know mileage varies.
>>
>> And it was the building block of several functions that GA PINES
>> identified as critical for TBS support during the Loblolly conference. We
>> may never fully support TBS programs in Evergreen but I thought GA PINES
>> collected a lot of great ideas and input there and would hate to discard
>> that.
>>
>> On Thursday, September 25, 2014, Kathy Lussier
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Great discussion so far!
>>>
>>> We had a bit of a discussion about privacy concerns in IRC after Terran
>>> sent her original message. One approach we were discussing was storing the
>>> awesome tags in an anonymous fashion, except in cases where patrons have
>>> opted into saving their circ history. In those cases, the user has already
>>> consented to having this information saved and could have a more enhanced
>>> experience with the recommendation engine. Others who were part of the
>>> discussion could elaborate or correct me if I'm not articulating the ideas
>>> correctly. The discussion can be found at
>>> http://irc.evergreen-ils.org/evergreen/2014-09-25#i_126632.
>>>
>>> In relation to genres, Vanya said:
>>>
>>> Maybe, as a solution to that, we can have a hierarchical algorithm for
>>> categorizing. In other words, we can allow the administrator to decide
>>> whether the categorization comes all the way down to genres, or just takes
>>> into account the overall w
