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

[Hardy, Elaine]

Holds processing checks whether the item is holdable or not as well as
available status. Making your missing status holdable will result in holds
being placed that can't be filled. If missing is nonholdable and is the
only item attached to the record, the Place Hold button will appear in the
OPAC, allowing users to place the hold. While the item is missing, the
targeter will not capture the item since it isn't in available status.

 

Placing holds and targeting holds are two distinct processes. A hold can
be placed but then not be able to be captured. This commonly occurs when
patron or item status changes between when the hold is placed and when the
targeter runs for that hold. If a patron accumulates fines or has an
expired account after the hold is placed, then no copy will be captured
for the hold until the status is resolved. If an item status changes to a
non-available one after the hold is placed, and there is no other item on
the record that qualifies, then the hold will never be captured. Also, if
an individual item attached to a record has the holdable flag set to true
in item attributes, even though the shelving location or circ modifier are
nonholdable, the place hold button appears on the OPAC record and a hold
can be placed. It just never will be captured by the holds targeter or by
opportunistic capture.

 

 

Elaine

J. Elaine Hardy
PINES & Collaborative Projects Manager
Georgia Public Library Service
1800 Century Place, Ste 150
Atlanta, Ga. 30345-4304

404.235-7128
404.235-7201, fax
ehardy at georgialibraries.org
www.georgialibraries.org
www.georgialibraries.org/pines

From: open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org
[mailto:open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of
Joan Kranich
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 12:14 PM
To: 'Evergreen Discussion Group'
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] ***SPAM*** Re: Holds placed prior to
status change

 

Hi,

 

I think originally we set the Copy Status Missing to not be Holdable
thinking a Hold would target a Missing item if we set the status to
Holdable.  If the system only targets the Available status, as it appears
to be working, then I think it would be fine for Missing to be Holdable.
The only part that may be a problem is if there is only one copy attached
and it is missing, the Hold placed by patrons would be allowed as if there
were a copy that could fill the Hold.

 

Joan

 

Joan Kranich

C/W MARS Member Services

jkranich at cwmars.org

508-755-3323 ext. 21

 

From: open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org
[mailto:open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of
Anne Murray
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 11:45 AM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] ***SPAM*** Re: Holds placed prior to
status change

 

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

 <mailto:llove at arlibrary.org> llove at arlibrary.org

336-838-2818

 

From:  <mailto:open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org>
open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org [
<mailto: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) <
<mailto:tji at sitka.bclibraries.ca> 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 < <mailto:deana.cunningham at granvillecounty.org>
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:  <tel:%28919%29%20528-1752> (919) 528-1752
Fax:  <tel:%28919%29%20528-1376> (919) 528-1376
 <mailto:deana.cunningham at granvillecounty.org>
deana.cunningham at granvillecounty.org

 

Tina Ji
 <tel:1-888-848-9250> 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

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20140227/731701aa/attachment-0001.htm>