[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Seeking opinions on client "Transfer All Title Holds" option

[Elisabeth Keppler]

Although I've been known to use "Transfer All Title Holds" when cleaning up
duplicate on-order records, I agree that it has the potential to cause
harm.  There are better and safer ways.  My vote is to remove it.

Thanks,
Lise Keppler


On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Boyer, Jason A <JBoyer1 at library.in.gov>
wrote:

>  Dangerous may be a little strong, but I’m the one who used “havoc” when
> referring to it, so what do I know. :) I’m for removing it.
>
>  Jason
>
> --
>  Jason Boyer
> Indiana State Library
> 140 North Senate Ave.
> Indianapolis, IN 46204
> http://library.in.gov/
> 317-234-2128
>
>  On Aug 5, 2014, at 8:13 AM, Kathy Lussier <klussier at masslnc.org> wrote:
>
>  Hi Rogan,
>
> Frankly, I worry this is starting to get into the territory of "let's add
> another permission (or YAOUS) for every eventuality no matter how obscure."
>
>
> Yes, I think I agree with you here, which is why I'm suggesting that
> rather than adding a permission, we remove that menu entry altogether.
> Since holds are already transferred as part of a record merge and there is
> another method available to transfer all holds that requires the user to
> actively select those holds, it seems to be an unnecessary and potentially
> dangerous option to me. Dangerous may be too strong of a word, but it is
> something that is problematic when it is accidentally selected.
>
> Kathy
>
> Kathy Lussier
> Project Coordinator
> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative(508) 343-0128klussier at masslnc.org
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
>
> On 8/4/2014 8:44 PM, Rogan Hamby wrote:
>
> Frankly, I worry this is starting to get into the territory of "let's add
> another permission (or YAOUS) for every eventuality no matter how
> obscure."
>
>  Some features I think in the long run complicate our lives
> (documentation, testing, development) more than they improve functionality.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Kathy Lussier <klussier at masslnc.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I wanted to seek some feedback on Launchpad bug 1350377
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1350377.
>>
>> The bug seeks an additional permission to be used with the "Transfer All
>> Title Holds" option in the client. However, I was wondering if there would
>> be any support from removing that option from the client altogether.
>>
>> Here's the issue:
>>
>> When you are in a bib record in the staff client, you have the option to
>> transfer *all* title holds to another bib record. You first need to mark
>> the other bib record as a holds transfer destination.
>>
>> However, you also have the option to transfer one or any number of
>> selected holds to the marked bib record from the holds view of the bib
>> record. You could transfer just one hold here or you could select them all
>> if you really needed to transfer all holds. The benefit of using this
>> option is that the user must actively select the holds that will be
>> transferred.
>>
>> I personally think providing a blanket "Transfer All Title Holds" option
>> in the client is dangerous, even if there were a separate permission for
>> it, and unnecessary since there are other methods available in the staff
>> client to accomplish the same task. Making it even more dangerous is the
>> fact that the "Actions for this Record" menu that contains this option to
>> transfer all holds is still available in the holds view of the bib record,
>> which is where you go to transfer selected holds (see the screencast at
>> http://www.screencast.com/t/ifHhJHNqq). It is very easy to mistakenly
>> select this option when you are trying just to transfer just one hold. In
>> fact, I accidentally selected it when I was just testing out the transfer
>> holds scenario a few minutes ago.
>>
>> During a brief discussion in IRC on this issue, it was mentioned that
>> possible use cases for the "transfer all title holds" option are:
>>
>> 1. When staff are manually merging bib records. The client bib merge
>> option automatically merges holds, but there may be reasons staff merge the
>> records without using that option.
>> 2. In cases where there are orphaned holds on a record that no longer has
>> copies to fill the hold.
>>
>> Since I think both of these use cases could be accommodated by using the
>> option where you transfer selected holds, I wanted to see if others would
>> support removing the "Transfer All Title Holds" option. Is there anyone who
>> uses this option with some frequency who thinks it should continue to be
>> available?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Kathy
>>
>> --
>> Kathy Lussier
>> Project Coordinator
>> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
>> (508) 343-0128
>> klussier at masslnc.org
>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
>
> Rogan Hamby, MLS, CCNP, MIA
> Managers Headquarters Library and Reference Services,
> York County Library System
>
>  “You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to
> suit me.”
> ― C.S. Lewis <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1069006.C_S_Lewis>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Lise Keppler
Forsyth County Public Library
660 W 5th St
Winston Salem NC 27101
336-703-3070
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20140805/f4e93dc9/attachment.htm>