[128] in ad-lib
full MARC on-order records in Advance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sbyrd@MIT.EDU)
Fri Mar 10 12:35:05 1995
From: sbyrd@MIT.EDU
To: ad-cat@MIT.EDU
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 12:33:45 EST
Hi folks, thought I'd share this with you--grist for the mill. (Eric,
sorry for the duplication...)
--Sam
------- Forwarded Message
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 1995 10:33:14 EST
From: standish@MIT.EDU
To: mgm@MIT.EDU, efc@MIT.EDU, cfollett@MIT.EDU, sbyrd@MIT.EDU, jsbanks@MIT
.EDU
cc: standish@MIT.EDU
Subject: Full MARC On-order Records in Advance
Hi, all! I decided to try send this message only to the people in
the group who might have some serious stake in full MARC on-order
records. What follows is my posing the question to Dewey and
Humanities Public Service people about how they felt about the issue.
I have attached first my message, and then the responses I received
in the order I received them (I've made them anonymous - as I said I
would). I apologize for the length, but it is all the responses I
received and I didn't want to edit them. Anyway, the upshot is some
concern, not a lot, but people do link the issue to Patron's making
their own holds and RUSH requests - something for all of you to think
about!
Mark
From: standish@MIT.EDU
To: dew-ref@MIT.EDU, lunatics@MIT.EDU
Subject: Looking for some feedback!
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 1995 11:32:10 EST
Hello, all! I'm looking for some feedback on an issue that came up in
the GEAC Advance group for Acquisitions. It involves how "on order"
records will appear in the public catalog. Presently, there are brief
records keyed in by acquisitions that appear in all caps. A curent
posibility will be to have records supplied by OCLC or vendors in full
MARC format that will be imported into Advance at the moment the item
is ordered. It is unclear how long it will take for the record to
appear in the OPAC. It could be 5 minutes after the item is ordered
or two days, but a full MARC record will appear fairly quickly into
the public catalog. The only difference between the ones we own and
the ones on order will be the holdings line which may have an
order number instead of a call number and say "On Order" instead of "In
Library." So, when there is a full MARC record available it
will be used to create an order and they will have fully searchable
keywords and subject headings. What does everyone think the impact
will be on Public Service? I'm looking for both the positive and
negative aspects of such a change. Please respond directly to me. I
will compile everyone's responses into a sample of responses that will
be quoted directly but everyone will remain anonymous.
Thanks for responding!
Mark S. Farrar
*1st response
Subject: Re: Looking for some feedback!
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 1995 11:51:30 EST
I think it's basically a good idea for several reasons. First of
all, there will be an absence of typos and other kinds of errors
in the public catalog for on-order records. (there seems to be
a fairly high error rate now, with some records inaccessible due
to mistakes in the author/title). Secondly, patrons and "service-
providers" will have access to complete information,
rather than just an author, title and order number. Will this mean
that on-order records will be indexed like a catalogued record? That
would be a good thing too.
What is the current lag-time between when a record is keyed into ACQ
and when it's available through the catalog? Even a lag of a couple
days seems worth it in order to have complete MARC records (especially
if they're indexed).
The only negative thing I can think of would be the possible confusion
for patrons in distinguishing
on-order records from catalogued records - but, then again, they
always have had that problem and probably always will. As long as
it says, "on order" somewhere prominently in the record, then we're
certainly no worse off than we are now.
*2nd response
Subject: Re: Looking for some feedback!
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 03 Mar 1995 11:32:10 EST."
I'm in favor of using the MARC records for on order books in the catalog.
I think it's best to give the patrons the information about the books and
the extra access--even if it means more work for us to deal with.
Yes, we might have to explain what "on order" means more often & we may have
to do more holds on books--but providing information and access is, afterall,
what we are all about!
*3rd Response
Subject: Re: Looking for some feedback!
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 1995 12:27:45 EST
I like the idea of having full marc records when they're available.
This would eliminate some of the problems I've had in locating orders
that are incorrectly typed in (incorrect spellings, the use of
articles at the beginning of titles, etc). I think it would add to the
uniformity of the catalog. I'm not so worried about whether this will
cause a delay in the actual order record appearing in Barton. After all,
isn't there a lag time right now?
*4th Response
Subject: full MARC on-order records
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 1995 13:28:02 EST
I suppose there will be more requests for book searches/book reserves
& patron notification. But if the system also allows the patron to
put a reserve request on the on-order record (haven't we been promised
that with one system or another?) then NO PROBLEM!
*5th Response
Subject: Re: Looking for some feedback!
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 1995 15:04:20 EST
*[removed]* Univ. uses a full record with "on Order" or "in Processing"
messages where the call # and location information usually goes. There have
been no confused patrons at the Reference desk (as far as I know) and it does
help people know that books will be coming. The only downside is telling the
patrons that they may have to wait (months?) for an ordered item to become
available.
*6th Response
Subject: Re: Looking for some feedback!
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 1995 09:26:45 EST
The only problem I can foresee with this is that the record
selected when an item is ordered won't always match the item received.
How will an incorrect record get bumped from the database? Will records
be linked with the GRSN number? Our current system of replacement of
on order records by the full record doesn't always seem to work very
successfully. Many on order records remain in Barton after the full
records are entered.
* 7th Response
Subject: "On order" records
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 1995 10:25:08 EST
*[removed]* ...about the question concerning how
"on order' records should appear in the OPAC. The negative part to
showing the full record is that users will think that the book is
cataloged and available immediately (they probably won't see the
"on order" listing). This could lead to some frustration for users. On the
other hand, it would be nice to have a full record that describes the item
thoroughly and that is searchable. The current "on order" records can be
confusing to users. Although I have mixed feelings about this, I think that
showing the full record would have more advantages than disadvantages.
If we could somehow highlight the "on order" message in the record, that
would be ideal. Hope this helps.
*8th Response
Subject: Re: Looking for some feedback!
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 1995 16:54:57 EST
It is a handy convenience to be able instantly to
recognize on order vs items in hand. To me, the caps serves as a
warning, a red light -- something's up with this record. Further, the
ability to do a subject search on an item that is not actually
available is not a plus for me.
ON THE OTHER HAND, the ability to provide subject access to precats
would indeed be a big plus. Your message didn't say if precats were
to be handled this way. If so, I'm all for it -- it would be worth
giving up the instant recognition in order to improve access to
precats.
If it's just order records, not precats, my feelings are not too
strong. It sounds like a minor inconvenience to public service,
possibly in exchange for a major time saving for tech service. If so,
that's OK with me.
*9th Response
Subject: Re: Looking for some feedback!
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 1995 15:23:14 EST
I don't think it will matter to users if the "on order" records look
the same as records for items we already own AS LONG AS the initial
display of the record includes the words, "on order" or "ordered."
The users I encounter at the desk do not interpret uppercase entries
as being "on order." Having the order number doesn't really
help them either. They see the order number in the upper right-hand
corner, and jot it down. They either think the order number is the call
number, or they don't know what it is. In either case they wind up at
the reference desk. Having orders in uppercase may raise questions
like, "Why are they "shouting" this title to me?", but it doesn't
answer any questions.
If they press the F3 key, they are uncertain about what the order date
represents. Some records read "order", followed by the date. This
seems to indicate to some that the date represents the date the record
was supposed to be ordered, but they don't know if it was ordered or
not, so the order number doesn't necessarily mean anything. Some
records read "ordered", followed by the date. This seems easier for
them to interpret that the record is on order. They jot down the
order number and come to the reference desk to see when it will be in.
For public service providers and users, I think it would be most
helpful if the initial display of the record says says "ordered"
giving the order date, followed by an eta date, then the order number.
Secret Life of Walter Mitty ORDERED 950304 ETA 950604 #95-00004675
That way, when the user sees the display he/she knows when to expect
the book to come in. If the eta date has come and gone, then the user
can jot down the order # and inquire about when the book will arive.
If the ETA date is yet to come, the user can either ask to be notified
when it arrives or decide to wait. If the book arrives before the ETA
date, then so much the better. The real record replaces the on order
record anyway. In any case, the user knows what he/she can expect
regarding arrival without having to ask. We routinely tell users that
it takes about 3 months from the order date for a book to get on our
shelves. The eta date would make that clear.
What would be really great is if the user had the option of sending
a message together with the record to Acquisitions to be notified when
the book comes in. Like the "order" feature in FirstSearch, only this
command could be "notify me."
*END*
------- End of Forwarded Message
