[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Metarecords and copy numbers

[Hardy, Elaine]

Grouping formats and editions into metarecords is not effective if you
don't have relatively clean data. The imperfections in the grouping
algorithm are magnified. Because the union database for PINES was created
out of individual library databases with different bibliographic utilities
and widely divergent adherence to national standards, we had a large
number of duplicate records or records with incorrect coding and other
information. As a result, grouping did not work when we went live with
Evergreen. It was initially the default for search results (or at least
easier for the search results to be returned as metarecords -- it has been
5 years and my memory around it is a little fuzzy) in PINES Evergreen.
However, it was immediately apparent that it just didn't work for us. So
it was made optional in the advanced search. If you have few duplicate bib
records and records primarily correctly coded and described, this feature
probably works well for you.

Elaine
 
 
J. Elaine Hardy
PINES Bibliographic Projects and Metadata Manager
Georgia Public Library Service,
A Unit of the University System of Georgia
1800 Century Place, Suite 150
Atlanta, Ga. 30345-4304
404.235-7128
404.235-7201, fax
 
ehardy at georgialibraries.org
www.georgialibraries.org
http://www.georgialibraries.org/pines/

-----Original Message-----
From: open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org
[mailto:open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of
Elizabeth Thomsen
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 10:54 PM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Metarecords and copy numbers

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-patro
>> n-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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>