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

[Kathy Lussier]

Hi Justin,

A library setting is certainly something I can look into. Also, once we 
move to the web client, it looks like this is something that local sites 
will be able to customize more easily since the removal on required a 
change to a tt2 file.

However, in looking at your deduplication project (I know you didn't ask 
my opinion, but I can't help myself), I would highly recommend using 
record merges. Despite it's name, it really is a "pick the best, lose 
the rest" approach. You pick the lead record, and the duplicate record 
is subsumed by that lead record. All of the holdings are transferred to 
the lead record in one step, as well as all holds, lineitem links (if 
you're using acq), and monographic parts.  It will also avert problems 
like the ones identified in 
https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/904472 where transferring 
items with monographic parts causes a bit of messiness.

I think you'll find it works quite nicely.

Kathy

Kathy Lussier
Project Coordinator
Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
(508) 343-0128
klussier at masslnc.org
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
#evergreen IRC: kmlussier

On 12/15/2014 5:57 PM, Justin Hopkins wrote:
> Kathy,
>
> We do use this option frequently. I can't say how often our libraries 
> wish to only transfer a single hold, but we are currently doing a lot 
> of deduplication which ultimately ends in one or more bibs being 
> deleted. In this case we obviously need to transfer all of the holds. 
> As you've said, there are other ways to accomplish this, though not as 
> efficiently. That said, perhaps we should take a "record merge" 
> approach rather than "pick the best, lose the rest". I don't want to 
> hold this up, but having only recently started this dedupe project 
> this wasn't on our radar when you initially brought it up.
>
> I think I'd like to do some experimenting, but perhaps a library 
> setting to disable the option is a good middle ground?
>
> Justin
>
> On Mon Dec 15 14:32:44 2014, Kathy Lussier wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm picking up this thread four months later. Seeing no objections to
>> removing the option and some hearty assent, I have contributed some
>> code to remove this option from both the old client and the new web
>> client. I'm sending out this e-mail for one last call to see if there
>> are any people who use it with some frequency who believe it should
>> continue to remain available in the client. As I mentioned when I
>> first sent out this message, even with the option removed, the ability
>> to transfer all holds will continue to be available from the bib
>> record's View Holds interface.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Kathy
>>
>> Kathy Lussier
>> Project Coordinator
>> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
>> (508) 343-0128
>> klussier at masslnc.org
>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
>> #evergreen IRC: kmlussier
>>
>> On 8/5/2014 11:51 AM, Tina Ji (Project Sitka) wrote:
>>> It is a dangerous action in our setting. We actually disabled it by
>>> graying out the option in the staff client.
>>>
>>>
>>> Quoting Kathy Lussier <klussier at masslnc.org>:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> Tina Ji
>>> 1-888-848-9250
>>> Support Specialist
>>> BC Libraries Cooperative/Sitka
>>>
>>