[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Metarecords and copy numbers

[Elizabeth Thomsen]

Thanks, Ben!  I never thought that it might have been a 2.0 thing, and
wondered how I could never noticed this before.  I realize now that my
favorite Evergreen sites have all upgraded since I last looked at this.

On the topic of grouping records and the language of FRBR, check out
j.weinheimer's video "Conversation between a patron and the library
catalog" that's been making the rounds:

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/12351402/conversation-between-a-patron-and-the-library-catalog-short

-- 
Elizabeth Thomsen, Member Services Manager
NOBLE: North of Boston Library Exchange
26 Cherry Hill Drive
Danvers MA 01923
Blog: http://www.noblenet.org/ethomsen/
E-mail: et at noblenet.org


On Sat, September 10, 2011 4:30 pm, Ben Shum wrote:
> Hi Elizabeth,
>
> Unfortunately, I can confirm that this bug is known to exist for awhile
> now. It started when some new code was added to the OPAC in 2.0 to display
> copy info in the results summary page.
>
> I can't remember if there's an active bug ticket on the issue yet but will
> check Launchpad later for this topic and post back if no one else gets to
> it first.
>
> -- Ben
> --
> Sent from my Droid Incredible.
>
> Elizabeth Thomsen <et at noblenet.org> wrote:
>
> We really like the option to group formats and editions, and the way it
> allows users to place a single hold on multiple different bib records.
> It's one of my favorite features in Evergreen.
>
> I have a question about the way the metarecords display in the results
> list. In our own training system and the live Evergreen sites I've
> checked, the metarecords show as having 0/0 copies, which certainly must
> discourage patrons from placing holds on them. Logically, shouldn't
> these copy numbers be aggregated from all the bib records? And if they
> can't be, is there any way to suppress the display of the copy numbers for
> the metarecords? No copy number information seems much better than wrong
> copy number information, especially when 0 makes these look like hopeless
> for holds when the metarecords actually increase the chances that the user
> will get a copy of the book faster than if they choose only a single bib
> record.
>
> It's possible I'm missing something obvious here, in which case I hope
> someone will enlighten me!
>
> --
> Elizabeth Thomsen, Member Services Manager
> NOBLE: North of Boston Library Exchange
> 26 Cherry Hill Drive
> Danvers MA 01923
> Blog: http://www.noblenet.org/ethomsen/
> E-mail: et at noblenet.org
>
>
>
>
>