Settings and activity
362 results found
-
2 votes
Shawn P. Farrell
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesShawn P. Farrell
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesShawn P. Farrell
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesShawn P. Farrell
shared this idea
·
-
24 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment Shawn P. Farrell
commented
During the Circulation Forum at this week's IUG, a few libraries brought up their continued interest in going fine free, but also shared how they still faced challenges within their respective institutions from those who felt materials would not come back.
This is a realistic concern, especially for libraries that couple going fine free with the protracted loan periods made possible by autorenewals. It can sometimes be challenging to get customers to return things, so we appreciate the availability of patron blocks that will prevent checkouts, renewals, etc., but not penalize a customer financially, like the ability to suspend borrowing privileges based on the number of days overdue.
We'd love to see a new Patron Block added based on the number of items a customer has claimed returned. That number would be determined by the library, work in conjunction with the process of claiming an item returned, & be configurable via the Patron Blocks table, so when a customer hits x number of items claimed returned, they're block from borrowing until the items are found & checked in & the counter is reduced.
An error occurred while saving the comment Shawn P. Farrell
commented
This was functionality we had in a previous ILS, long before the fine free craze had captured the attention of so many. I would imagine, if introduced, it would be as optional/configurable as any other block.
When a library has a clearly communicated policy for items claimed returned & staff are trained to & actually do follow through with shelf checks, it can be as effective as any other block. At CHPL, in addition to immediate shelf checks when a customer claims an item returned, we run regular reports for staff to act on, that help minimize the number of items that have actually been returned. We also reset the counter annually for those with no active claims on their account.
Shawn P. Farrell
shared this idea
·
-
6 votesShawn P. Farrell
supported this idea
·
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Shawn P. Farrell
commented
Agreed. The current approach is curious. Our autonotice process kicks off shortly after 6:00 AM. Texts go out before emails, though only by a matter of minutes. So a patron might be sent a hold pickup text at 6:15 & a hold pickup email at 6:30, both of which they're likely to receive & see on the same device.
Shawn P. Farrell
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesShawn P. Farrell
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesShawn P. Farrell
supported this idea
·
-
9 votesShawn P. Farrell
supported this idea
·
-
5 votesShawn P. Farrell
supported this idea
·
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Shawn P. Farrell
commented
@Elaine, in most cases, for an idea submitted through Idea Exchange, like yours, in order for it to be brought into production, it first has to be selected for an enhancement ballot & then be among the winning ideas once put to a vote by the user community.
The Sierra MEEP group has been discussing the possibility of a different approach for the next round of voting to give ideas like yours more of a shot at being brought to fruition.
Beginning with the ballot for 7.2 later this year, we may alternate between a general ballot where all eligible Sierra ideas are considered for inclusion, & a more focused one, where only those from a specific category, like Cataloging & Metadata Management, Reporting & Analytics, Acquisitions, Serials & Inventory Management, etc. are considered.
This approach would be an opportunity for ideas that may not have broad appeal but are still impactful a better chance of not only making the ballot, but winning.
Shawn P. Farrell
supported this idea
·
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Shawn P. Farrell
commented
@Emma, Cirrius Impact (III's partner vendor) did the setup of the opt-in page for us, working with our Project Manager from Clarivate. We weren't able to do much in the way of customization. I've attached a look at part of that.
Shawn P. Farrell
shared this idea
·
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Shawn P. Farrell
commented
Having to navigate back & forth from Cataloging mode disrupts the workflow. It'd be much better if staff could do this all within the Serials module.
Shawn P. Farrell
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesShawn P. Farrell
supported this idea
·
-
1 voteShawn P. Farrell
shared this idea
·
-
1 voteShawn P. Farrell
shared this idea
·
-
1 voteShawn P. Farrell
shared this idea
·
-
1 voteShawn P. Farrell
shared this idea
·
-
7 votesShawn P. Farrell
supported this idea
·
@G.Wise, when this item was reviewed & scored by III's Engineers, that was indeed one of the functional requirements. See Mike's summary below. Staff would be required to perform an override (& their action would be recorded in the circulation overrides table). Hopefully, the idea will return on a future ballot.