[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Holds placed prior to status change

[Michele Morgan]

I am hoping someone will correct me if I’m wrong about any of this, but the Pull list should only show items with status Available or Reshelving. If Missing was holdable, it still wouldn’t show on the Pull list.

Having the Missing status not holdable will stop holds from being placed, so it prevents placement of unfillable holds. Changing the Missing status to holdable could result in the need to manage more unfillable holds.

I’m wondering if anyone has made their Missing status holdable and what affect it has had.

-Michele 

On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Elisabeth Keppler <keppleep at forsyth.cc> wrote:

> If we changed 'missing' status to holdable, wouldn't that delay finding a viable copy to fill the hold?  We're marking items 'missing' if they're on the Pull List and not on the shelf but a different copy is available.  By marking the targeted item missing and then using Find Another Target, we can use the copy we have in our hands to fill the hold.  Under our previous ILS (Sirsi), it didn't matter which copy we discharged as long as it was on the same title record.  Evergreen doesn't seem to accept alternate copies, though.  Is there a better way to do this?
> 
> Thanks,
> Lise
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Anne Murray <anne.hamilton4 at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> We would certainly find it far better if 'trace' and 'missing' triggered holds. We have found a lot of our missing stock recently and have had to manually look at each book for holds (they only get changed to that status in the first place as they are holds we can't find). 
> 
> Anne Murray
> East Dunbartonshire Libraries
> Kirkintilloch
> Scotland
> 
> 
> On 27 February 2014 16:31, Michele Morgan <mmorgan at noblenet.org> wrote:
> In NOBLE, we recommend checking in new items using the Checkin Modifiers “Retarget Local Holds” (for In Process items) and, if necessary, “Retarget all statuses” if items are in statuses other than In Process. Doing this looks for “local" holds for the new items, but not holds for pickup at other libraries. This doesn’t work perfectly, but it’s the best option we currently have.
> 
> Finding the appropriate hold and retargeting it also works, but this is a cumbersome process.
> 
> Things would work much more smoothly if new items were targeted immediately when they were entered. I’ll add this to Launchpad as a wishlist bug.
> 
> We also have the problem where an item on the pull list can’t be found, and is changed to missing. When it is found a few minutes later, it won’t trigger the hold.
> 
> I am wondering about changing the holdability of some of our statuses, like Missing, from False to True. Would this solve this problem -  but cause others?
> 
> It’s great to see this kind of discussion on the list to compare workflows and see ways that the system could be improved.
> 
> -Michele
> 
> On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:17 AM, Laurie Love <LLove at arlibrary.org> wrote:
> 
>> Lise:
>>     I’m part of the NC Cardinal system also and Wilkes (Appalachian Regional) has been with Evergreen since 2011.  If you ever want to call or email me with questions, I’m happy to try to help.   The holds are really tricky with Evergreen and there are lots of  foibles.  The “Find another Target” is supposed to look for another title to satisfy the hold.  Doesn’t always work in my experience though.
>> Laurie Love
>> Circ. Mgr.
>> Wilkes County Public Library
>> llove at arlibrary.org
>> 336-838-2818
>>  
>> From: open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org [mailto:open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Elisabeth Keppler
>> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:05 AM
>> To: Evergreen Discussion Group
>> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Holds placed prior to status change
>>  
>> We're new to Evergreen and have been struggling with holds on new items.  We've had issues with Find Another Target messing up the holds queue, but we may have been doing it incorrectly.  
>>  
>> When you say to "Find Another Target for the hold on top of the queue", Tina, do you mean the first hold that appears when we click on View Holds for the record?  This seems to be the newest hold and might not be for our library's patron.  (We're in the NC Cardinal consortium.  Since we use 6-month age hold protection, holds outside Forsyth County won't be filled by new items we add here.)  We tried filtering to holds for just the branch where the new item was added, but that seems to have caused problems.  Would you mind elaborating on your recommendation?
>>  
>> Thanks very much,
>> Lise Keppler
>> Forsyth County Public Library
>>  
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Tina Ji (Project Sitka) <tji at sitka.bclibraries.ca> wrote:
>> Hi Deana,
>> 
>> If your 'missing' and 'trace' statuses are non-holdable, this is probably the expected behaviour. We experience the same thing with our hold targeter running every 15 mins for new holds (placed within 24 hours) and daily for old holds (placed 24 hours ago). So new holds may be targeted by a copy with newly achieved holdable status, but not the old ones.
>> 
>> The opportunistic capture is related to the hold_copy_map, which is updated by the hold targeter, thus updated daily for old holds. Items with newly achieved holdable status is not in that table for old holds.
>> 
>> We advise our sites doing Find Another Target for the hold on top of the queue or waiting for a day. The checkin modifier: Retarget Local Hold may help, to some extent.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Tina
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Quoting Deana Cunningham <deana.cunningham at granvillecounty.org>:
>> 
>> Hi great brain!
>> 
>> I was playing around today on our test server and have a question  about hold triggering. After an item has a status change to  "missing" or "trace", any holds placed prior to that change are not  getting triggered upon item check in. I have tried checking the item  in numerous times (to see if maybe the first time when it changes  the status back to "reshelving" it would activate the hold for  capture at the next check in, but it did not. Placing a new hold on  the item after the status has been changed back to "reshelving"  causes that hold to be triggered on subsequent check ins, but the  hold placed before changing to "trace" or "missing" is not triggered.
>> 
>> Something I'm missing here?
>> 
>> I also realize the item should be caught during the regular "check  for holds" cron job (which is another problem we're having) but I am  only looking at opportunistic hold capturing right now.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Deana
>> 
>> Deana Cunningham
>> Branch Manager, South Branch Library
>> 1550 S. Campus Dr.
>> Creedmoor, NC 27522
>> Phone: (919) 528-1752
>> Fax: (919) 528-1376
>> deana.cunningham at granvillecounty.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Tina Ji
>> 1-888-848-9250
>> Trainer/Help Desk Specialist
>> BC Libraries Cooperative/Sitka
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> --
>> Lise Keppler
>> Forsyth County Public Library
>> 660 W 5th St
>> Winston Salem NC 27101
>> 336-703-3070
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/20140227/72835a00/attachment-0001.htm>