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
kluss...@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
kluss...@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 <kluss...@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
kluss...@masslnc.org
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
Tina Ji
1-888-848-9250
Support Specialist
BC Libraries Cooperative/Sitka
