This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ReCAP Update:Tech Services Librarians
Zack LaneReCAP CoordinatorColumbia University
4/29/2010
Retrieval by Publication Date of off,glx
0
500
1000
1500
2000
25001850
1859
1868
1877
1886
1895
1904
1913
1922
1931
1940
1949
1958
1967
1976
1985
1994
2003
Summary
• How ReCAP systems work (and don’t work)
• Current Projects– ASCC– CCMSCC– Interns/GAs
• Data analysis
ReCAP Systems
• CUL and ReCAP computer systems do not dynamically interact
• CUL systems are designed to keep in sync with ReCAP systems
• Requests placed through regular mechanisms or directly via ReCAP staff
• Processing (Staff involved: CUL)– Barcode attached to wrong volume (see 7a)
• Wrong bib record (bad recon)• Smart barcode switch• Mismatch of serial/set issues
– Item prepared but never sent– Item with smart bc not found, not charged to missing– Item with smart bc found but not transferred, data not purged from record– Wrong customer code/CLIO location match (e.g. CM barcode/off,glx location)– Item transferred to ReCAP with barcode not in Voyager (“Orphan Offsite
Barcode”)• Barcode miskeyed• Barcode not entered
• Transfer (Staff involved: CUL/Clancy-Cullen/ReCAP)– CLIO displays onsite location when in process for transfer– Onsite staging may not be accessible to patron– Delay in accessioning (normal timing is 2-4 weeks after transfer)– Single vol of set isn’t accessioned (sometimes CLIO location flips, sometimes
not)• Accession (Staff involved: ReCAP)
– Barcode not entered/deleted from Voyager– Barcode scans incorrectly– Accession report never received– CLIO location doesn’t change after accession (charged at time of accession?)
Ex: BIBL# 3879176– Barcode scanned under wrong customer code. Sol: Identify using Accessions
data, sorting by customer code, barcode prefix and CLIO location• Request (Staff involved: CUL/ReCAP)
– Request button doesn’t appear• Misapplied off,xxx location. Problem during early stages of transfer; mostly eliminated by
batch suppression.• Short time delay between location flip and button appearance• Presence of non-offsite Temp. Loc. during processing. Ex. BIBL# 3393111 (Lehman)
– Error message displays when button clicked– Request fails unbeknownst to patron– Bad citation– Bad email address
• Maintenance (Staff involved: CUL)– Holdings record with RECAP LOAD in history is deleted and replaced with
new holdings. Ex. BIBL# 6622249– OPAC message discourages patron, e.g. “ON
– ORDER /IN PROCESS”– MFHD/Item has “off,xxx” location but has no offsite barcode. [12/09, not yet systematically
addressed]– CLIO locations changed from “off,xxx” to “xxx” Ex. BIBL#106440
• Retrieval (Staff involved: ReCAP)– Book not filed “OUT” from ReCAP; ReCAP database thinks book is “IN” (Google Project
– S&R delivery delayed– S&R deliver to wrong library– ReCAP staff puts book in wrong delivery tote
• Circulation (Staff involved: CUL/Patron)– Barcode does not correspond to correct bib record/enum/chron– Book not charged to patron (who may not return)– Items languish in processing departments; charged or not charged– Claim returns with offsite locations
• Not returned• At bindery• Slow return to ReCAP
– Temp Loc and Type not removed• E.g. Reserve books. Solution: Request report of off,xxx locations with Temp Loc.
• Return (Staff involved: Patron/CUL)– Mis-shelved onsite at returning library– Mis-shelved onsite at owning library (after routing)– Book is not discharged– In transit status is not removed (Can batch file be run for all off,xxx location with In transit?)– Overdue/Lost—System Applied is returned. Discharged but Lost status not removed. Still
requestable in CLIO; not resolved by weekly reconciliation.• Refiling (Staff involved: ReCAP)
– Books are slow to be reshelved• ILL (Staff involved: CUL/ReCAP)
– Request does not go through normal mechanism, item may be requested twice resulting in failure notice
– Book never returned from loan (How to track?)• EDD
– Articles isn’t scanned• Condition/binding• Copyright• Not found• Insufficient information
– Patron can’t access files• Pop up blocker• Problem with browser• Unfamiliarity with technology
– Holdings ID– Call Number– Enumeration/Chronology– Item ID– CLIO Location– UNI– Hashed UNI– Year of Request– Month of Request– Day of Request– Hour of Request– Minute of Request
Retrieval Rate by Publication Date: 1850-2008
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
8.00%
9.00%
10.00%
1850
1854
1858
1862
1866
1870
1874
1878
1882
1886
1890
1894
1898
1902
1906
1910
1914
1918
1922
1926
1930
1934
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
Request by Language
• 326,591 total requests 2002-2009
• 203 different languages requested
• English accounts for 63.27% of all requests
• Top 10 languages account for 93.53% of all requests