[Evergreen-catalogers] How to explain the display of "empty records"?

[Sarah Childs]

I would be interested to know if anyone does find this "feature" useful. I
usually explain it by saying bib records that belong to noone belong to
everyone. I would definitely prefer it if these only turned up in searches
scoped to the entire consortium.

On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 2:36 PM Mary Llewellyn via Evergreen-catalogers <
evergreen-catalogers at list.evergreen-ils.org> wrote:

> Hi Erica,
>
> In our case, none of the reported bibs has an 856. These are records we
> loaded at the request of another library, in which they haven't gotten
> around to adding their own items.
>
> When we first migrated to Evergreen, the empty bibs were colored in gray,
> and that caused no end of complaints. We were relieved when the coloring
> was turned off. It drew less attention to the empty bibs and people calmed
> down.
>
> Our public services staff aren't looking to do any cataloging, so seeing
> the empty bibs, colored in or not, is not helpful to them. Our acq staff
> members are adding an "on order" copy to the records when they activate
> their purchase orders, so there's no need from them to place holds on empty
> bibs. Their display in a library-based search instead of CONS serves no
> useful purpose to us.
>
> I don't know if there's been an influx of new staff first running into
> these, or if the angular catalog is making them more prominent, displaying
> them at the top of search results, but I need to write up an FAQ for our
> librarians that I can point at every time we get another complaint. I'd
> like to say something more detailed than "it's a feature, not a bug."
>
> Mary
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 2:17 PM Erica Rohlfs <erica.rohlfs at equinoxoli.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mary,
>>
>> I don't know if I can be of much help. I see that you're already aware of Wish
>> List - Add color coding when there are no holdings
>> <https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1966342> so I'm just listing
>> it here for others who are following the discussion. I agree with Elaine
>> that having the empty bib records, a.k.a. shadowed records color coded was
>> once a very helpful feature. I also agree that some mechanism to filter out
>> the truly empty bibs would be a good feature, too. Some of the confusion
>> also stems from the fact that, if there is an associated 856 subfield 9 on
>> the record, it's not considered empty. This is one of the factors that
>> consortia consider when removing the e-resources from the catalog (only one
>> factor, I know there are many others). Some libraries do filter on Group
>> Formats/Editions to consolidate results, where possible. But, this doesn't
>> answer the question of why the records show up in the results :-) You've
>> noted that there are catalogers' considerations for retrieving empty bibs.
>> Really, the only circulation reason that stands out in my mind is that,
>> with the permission to override HIGH_LEVEL_HOLD_HAS_NO_COPIES, staff can
>> place holds on empty bibs. I don't know how many use cases there are for
>> it, maybe Acquisitions and Collections Librarians in the community have
>> specific use cases. I'd love to learn more about them.
>>
>> Thank You,
>> Erica
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 1:27 PM Mary Llewellyn via Evergreen-catalogers <
>> evergreen-catalogers at list.evergreen-ils.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I could use some advice.
>>>
>>> We have our catalogers use CONS as their search library so they can find
>>> all records, with and without items, when they need to catalog their own
>>> items.
>>>
>>> However, the public services staff use their own library as a search
>>> library, and that's where we run into staff confusion.
>>>
>>> When they run into a bib record with no items, they report that to us as
>>> an error.
>>> When they are searching in their own library, they expect to only
>>> retrieve records with their items.
>>>
>>> I'm trying to come up with a succinct explanation for why they see those
>>> records. I do assure them that their public does not see the "empty"
>>> records, that they only appear in the staff catalog. Can someone share with
>>> me the official reason for why these records display?
>>>
>>> I wish there were some way to prevent them from coming up in their
>>> searches.
>>> --
>>> Mary Llewellyn
>>> Database Manager
>>> Bibliomation, Inc.
>>> 24 Wooster Ave.
>>> Waterbury, CT 06708
>>> mllewell at biblio.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Evergreen-catalogers mailing list
>>> Evergreen-catalogers at list.evergreen-ils.org
>>>
>>> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-catalogers
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Erica Rohlfs, MLIS, PMP
>> Senior Implementation Project Manager
>> Equinox Open Library Initiative
>> erica.rohlfs at equinoxOLI.org
>> https://equinoxOLI.org
>> phone: 877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
>> direct: 770-709-5572
>>
>
>
> --
> Mary Llewellyn
> Database Manager
> Bibliomation, Inc.
> 24 Wooster Ave.
> Waterbury, CT 06708
> mllewell at biblio.org
> _______________________________________________
> Evergreen-catalogers mailing list
> Evergreen-catalogers at list.evergreen-ils.org
> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-catalogers
>


-- 
Sarah Childs (pronouns: she/her)
Technical Services Department Head
Hussey-Mayfield Memorial Public Library
250 North Fifth Street
Zionsville, IN 46077
317-873-3149 x13330
sarahc at hmmpl.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/evergreen-catalogers/attachments/20221004/31739f86/attachment.htm>