Settings and activity
288 results found
-
15 votes
Margaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
28 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
10 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
11 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Margaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
15 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Margaret Rose O'Keefe
commented
Gabrielle, our consortium does have the Lost Item Transition in place also - but staff would like to be able to do it 'ad hoc' as well, prior to the transition, as needed.
-
62 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
31 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
34 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
10 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Margaret Rose O'Keefe
commented
Another idea here might be to allow the 130 field to be considered in the roll-up logic for JUST movies (240/130 was removed from consideration in roll-up logic because of issues it caused with print titles) so that catalogers could enter the "uniform" movie title there and trigger the roll-up that way. (The 130 field does provide disambiguation for works with the same name by including the year.)
-
13 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
99 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Margaret Rose O'Keefe
commented
This would be extremely helpful for our consortium! (We might even be ok with an In Transit to Withdrawn transition instead.)
Margaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
22 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Margaret Rose O'Keefe
commented
I should have noted that the name of this Circulation Status in Polaris is "In-Repair" (we changed it to display as "Being Repaired")
Margaret Rose O'Keefe
shared this idea
·
-
14 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
41 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Margaret Rose O'Keefe
commented
After reading this again after some time has gone by, it seems to me that we need to EXCLUDE items with certain suppressed statuses from generating the On Order message (not INCLUDE them).
Basically if all items on a bib. are Being Acquired or In-Process, then fine, it's On Order, but if all items on a bib. are Lost, Withdrawn, Missing, etc. then it should NOT say On Order. To me, that's an EXCLUDE in the logic, since right now ALL those statuses are resulting in On Order displaying, which is misleading to patrons.
As for records with NO linked items, that should probably be up to the library whether or not they want it to display as On Order, since there might be different views on that scenario.
Margaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
11 votes
Secured patrons are patrons with a record status = 3. It is possible through SimplyReports content administration to add the RecordStatusID column from the Patrons table to the list of output columns.
I'm putting this idea under review because the RecordStatusID isn't exactly what was requested here. But I wanted to share that it may provide a workaround.
Margaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
11 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
53 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
16 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
Wes, that's a great idea! Our consortium doesn't use damaged check-in, but if we did I would vote for that idea.