[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Metarecords and copy numbers

[Elizabeth Thomsen]

Thanks, Ben, sorry I missed that bug ticket!  I'm now subscribed.

As for people being interesting in Group Formats and Editions, I feel like
this is an underused and underpromoted feature of the Evergreen catalog. 
The grouping algorithm is not perfect, but it seems to work really well,
and the benefits to the user seem obvious.  What's the downside?

Is there a reason this is typically only shown as an option on the
Advanced Search screen?

On Sat, September 10, 2011 10:33 pm, Ben Shum wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>