[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Metarecords and copy numbers

[Ben Shum]

To follow up, I found the bug ticket on this particular issue described.  I guess I was the original person who reported it to the community back in January 2011 when we were first testing Evergreen 2.0.

See here for bug details:  https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/707757

Good to know that others are still interested in the "group formats and editions" option for the OPAC, I guess.

-- Ben

On Sep 10, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Elizabeth Thomsen wrote:

> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20110910/1eff0692/attachment-0001.htm>