On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Kevin Kierans wrote:
> Meta-records
>
> Before we migrated to Evergreen we painfully separated our paperbacks and
> hardcovers into separate bib records. Until then we'd attached paperbacks
> and hardcovers to the same bib record because, all things considered (th
Meta-records
Before we migrated to Evergreen we painfully separated our paperbacks and
hardcovers into separate bib records. Until then we'd attached paperbacks and
hardcovers to the same bib record because, all things considered (the hold
queue and patron satisfaction), this made sense. But
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Elizabeth Thomsen wrote:
>> Thank, Elaine, this is a helpful explanation.
>>
>> One of the problems I see with placing hold on metarecords involves the
>> standard formats. I like that you can place a single h
Thanks, Dan, this is interesting, and I can see why this feature might not
be so helpful in your situation.
Holds are a big part of our business here, a large number of which are
placed by patrons from home who don't really care if their local library
owns the book as long as it arrives at their p
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Elizabeth Thomsen wrote:
> Thank, Elaine, this is a helpful explanation.
>
> One of the problems I see with placing hold on metarecords involves the
> standard formats. I like that you can place a single hold on all formats
> of Great Expectations (or whatever) o
Thomsen
> Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 10:54 PM
> To: Evergreen Discussion Group
> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Metarecords and copy numbers
>
> Thanks, Ben, sorry I missed that bug ticket! I'm now subscribed.
>
> As for people being interesting in Group Formats and Edit
: Saturday, September 10, 2011 10:54 PM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Metarecords and copy numbers
Thanks, Ben, sorry I missed that bug ticket! I'm now subscribed.
As for people being interesting in Group Formats and Editions, I feel like
this is an underused an
Thanks, Ben, sorry I missed that bug ticket! I'm now subscribed.
As for people being interesting in Group Formats and Editions, I feel like
this is an underused and underpromoted feature of the Evergreen catalog.
The grouping algorithm is not perfect, but it seems to work really well,
and the be
To follow up, I found the bug ticket on this particular issue described. I
guess I was the original person who reported it to the community back in
January 2011 when we were first testing Evergreen 2.0.
See here for bug details: https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/707757
Good to know th
Thanks, Ben! I never thought that it might have been a 2.0 thing, and
wondered how I could never noticed this before. I realize now that my
favorite Evergreen sites have all upgraded since I last looked at this.
On the topic of grouping records and the language of FRBR, check out
j.weinheimer's
Hi Elizabeth,
Unfortunately, I can confirm that this bug is known to exist for awhile now. It
started when some new code was added to the OPAC in 2.0 to display copy info in
the results summary page.
I can't remember if there's an active bug ticket on the issue yet but will
check Launchpad la
We really like the option to group formats and editions, and the way it
allows users to place a single hold on multiple different bib records.
It's one of my favorite features in Evergreen.
I have a question about the way the metarecords display in the results
list. In our own training system an
12 matches
Mail list logo
