Allow Patrons to Freeze a Hold when there are no other patrons in queue
Patrons cannot freeze a hold when there are no other patrons in the queue (see image below). In the July 2026 catalogue upgrade the original ticket for this was closed by Innovative, but the behaviour was not changed.
Ideally, if all holds in the queue are frozen (or there are no holds), patrons should be able to freeze a hold.
Library users need to manage their holds. We do not want them to need to go to the circulation desk to freeze a hold because they cannot do this in the catalogue.
Elizabeth Wright
shared this idea
-
Elizabeth Wright
commented
Thanks Elias - I am sure it relates to a Sierra issue, but I will contact Support to be sure and update this post with my findings.
-
Elias Rosner
commented
Yep! I tested it on a bib that had two available items and no one in the holds queue except myself and was able to freeze the hold. Were you able to get to the "freeze hold pop-up" at least or did it error out before even getting there? The hold that was on the record with the Lost item had been around for at least two or three months and I was able to freeze that one as well. Is it possible your browser's cache just needs to be cleared? Does this happen on multiple account on multiple computers?
We're also using Polaris and not Sierra so maybe that's where the issue is.
-
Elizabeth Wright
commented
I placed a hold in Discover. There were no holds on the bib. I then logged out of Discover. I then tried to freeze the hold and could not. I also tried to freeze a hold that had been placed many weeks ago and still got the error.
In your testing, was there an available item that could fill your hold? Our customers want to place holds on a series of titles, and then freeze them right away so that they can read the first title before the others are sent to them.
-
Elias Rosner
commented
I was able to get this to work with my holds. I was the only one in the queue for the item and could freeze it. I tried with a second item that had multiple available copies (the one below the only copy is Lost) and got the same result. Is it possible this was a bug that got fixed?
