Francis,
Let me explain my logic. You questioned whether it actually mattered when
people brought material back unless there was a waiting list. I believe
that unless there is an obvious reminder or incentive to bring material back
then human nature being what it is a large proportion of users would just
not bother (until they are prodded by a letter). I'm not arguing for the
trusty date stamp, just that you need to set time limits on the return of
material! Many users are not regular users of the library and could borrow
up to ten items from us then just not bother to bring the material back. If
follwoing your argument we took the attitude that it did not matter when it
came back, how long would it be before the shelves were badly denuded?
I'm sure you are in favour of browsing, but I just believe that not setting
a return date would result in less material being available on the shelves
for people to browse. The maximum number of items would only stop regular
users from keeping material too long and thus emptying the shelves as they
would obviously have to return items to borrow more. But this would not
effect the users who perhaps only comes in once or twice a year.
I do agree though that it is not a date stamp issue!
-----Original Message-----
From: Frances Hendrix [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 18 January 2002 14:31
To: Sheffield Libraries, Archives & Information;
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Re: Date stamps
I don't think I for one minute suggested browsing was not to be encouraged?
And surely what prevents your shelves emptying is the restriction on the
number of books a borrower has at a time, not the time he/she has an item
for?
I am afraid I do not understand your logic. I am all for more innovative
ways of getting readers to extend their interests and taste, as some of the
innovative and interesting work now being done is illustrating. But none of
this involves or affects date stamps!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sheffield Libraries, Archives & Information"
<[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: Date stamps
> It does matter when material comes back. The bulk of borrowing is not
done
> by reservations (this needs a degree of purpose on the part of the user in
> knowing what they want). Most borrowing is done either by browsing for
> something to read, or through a need to find the best items in a general
> subject area. How many book purchases are also made on the principle of
> browsing? A great deal otherwise the book shops would not invest so much
> effort into displays etc. Apart from this, the obvious reason why we need
> to insist on a return date is that if we did not then there would be
nothing
> left on the shelves! Not much of an experience for someone browsing the
> shelves.
>
> This is the 21st Century and I for one still want the experience of
> browsing, selecting and handling a wide choice of books in my local
library.
>
> John Murphy
> Group Manager, ICT Development
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A forum for discussion of the issues arising from implementing the
> Internet [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Frances
> Hendrix
> Sent: 18 January 2002 10:23
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Date stamps
>
>
> I have been following this debate now for a week or more, and have to say
am
> amazed at the detail, passion, concern, etc. But I do wonder if the actual
> date has any use for any one other than the borrower, and if only the
> borrower, does it actually matter when they bring it back, unless there is
a
> waiting list? Most people do bring stuff back (at some stage), and all
this
> effort for stamping and charging fines, is it really cost effective? When
I
> borrow books from professional bodies of which I am a member , I simply
get
> a polite letter if they need it back. Are we hanging on to 'old' practices
> for no good reason than we do not want to move on, and like the
'authority'
> of the date stamp, and the excuse we may need the data?
>
> This is the 21stCentury isn't it?
>
> I have however enjoyed the debate, learnt a lot, and it speaks volumes!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Usher" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 7:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Date stamps
>
>
> > Date stamps - like a lot of things in libraries (*and* other
> organisations,
> > commercial as well as public, lets not kid ourselves, or beat ourselves
> up),
> >
> > "Dead, but won't lie down"?
> >
> > In my 'umble opinion, technology is changing things (phone renewals =
> > technology?), and some of the old tools and processes still do useful
> jobs, but
> > we just don't cost them out, because they're already there. Can we still
> > actually afford them?
> >
> > It was very useful and practical to shelf-check the Brown Issue (yes,
I'm
> that
> > old...) against the shelves before sending overdues, in case items were
> not
> > discharged properly (or snuck back on the shelves by a user to prevent
> fines),
> > but we stopped doing that when we automated loans and overdues, many
moons
> ago.
> >
> > Staff wanted to check a printout (Line Impact printed, continuous
> feed,15"x11",
> > green music-ruled, 3" thick...) before automated overdues were sent out,
> so we
> > tried it - but two weeks later the reports hadn't been checked (what a
> > surprise...), so, out went the overdues!
> >
> > The problems (or should I say challenges?) that the pre-overdues shelf
> checks
> > addressed were shifted about (generally to customer complaints), but
> they're
> > still there. Perhaps we should address the real problem of Quality
Control
> on
> > discharge? and have book security systems work on entry as well as exit?
> >
> > Perhaps we sometimes aren't actually concerned with being pro-active in
> the
> > "Modernisation" (aargh! - apologies, had a funny turn there...) of our
> services,
> > but prefer to allow them to wither on the vine, and accept the
> consequences?
> >
> > Or we take firm measures to remove old ways, whether staff like it or
not
> (and
> > whether we've considered it properly or not), and accept the
consequences?
> >
> > I suggest that, *IF* we *want* to phase out date stamps, we need to
ensure
> that
> > that:
> >
> > The systems we deploy to create and extract Management Information (MIS)
> are
> > simple to use and cost-effective, like an OPAC - not a set of techie
tools
> like
> > BusinessObjects, Crystal Reports etc. (bit of a challenge to the
suppliers
> > lurking on the list - e.g. Dan at Geac earlier on).
> >
> > That we have a management commitment to provide *all* front-line staff
> with
> > fingertip access to timely, current, MIS (not just managers or
> supervisors), in
> > the format necessary for their purposes, just as we do Circulation and
> OPAC
> > systems, and the cost-benefits can be demonstrated to wean staff off the
> desire
> > to keep date stamps/labels.
> >
> > This would also demonstrate that staff have been given the tools to
manage
> their
> > stock properly. If any question arises that this is not being done
> properly, the
> > technology cannot be blamed.
> >
> > However, suspect we'll do some mix of all of this, the human condition
> being
> > what it is!
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > John
> >
> > ps. Is a handful of 5"x3" catalogue cards still probably the best way to
> > shelf-check the catalogue? Answers on 2nd class snail-mail postcard,
> please!
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > John Usher
> > ICT Development Manager
> > Islington Library & Information Service
> > Education Department
> > Central Library
> > 2 Fieldway Crescent
> > LONDON N5 1PF
> >
> > Tel: +44 (0)20 7527 6920
> > Fax: +44 (0)20 7527 6926
> > Switchboard: +44 (0)20 7527 6900
> > mailto:[log in to unmask]
> > http://www.islington.gov.uk/libraries
> >
> > This email account may be opened by others in the owner's absence
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
****************************************************************************
> ************
> > This email and any files transmitted with it may contain information
> > which is privileged and confidential, the disclosure of which is
> > prohibited by law and intended solely for the use of the individual or
> > entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in
> > error please note any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
> > message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately
> > if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your
> > system.
> >
> > Email transmissions cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as
> > information can be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late
> > or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept
> > liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message
> > which arise as a result of email transmission. If verification is
> > required please request a hard copy version.
> > Thank you for your co-operation.
> >
>
****************************************************************************
> ************
|