Do you mean that having a date stamp means people return the book? Have you
tried without, the book is still recorded as out, and still has a book plate
in?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lucy Cross" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Date stamps
> What a fascinating debate. One comment about a previous suggestion - why
> bother with date stamps, and bringing books back, I know that if we did
that
> whole sections of our library stock would go out and not come back! For
> example, books on computers, books on management, politics, history
> sociology, medicine - all of this stock would go out and would never been
> seen again.
>
> I don't think sending out polite letters asking for their return would
work!
>
> Lucy Cross,
> Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Heywood [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 18 January 2002 14:41
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Date stamps
>
>
> I think this strand of the discussion has moved on to loan periods, which
is
> a different can of worms again. I don't think it's unreasonable to have a
> fixed period loan, if only to establish the fact that it *is* a loan and
not
> a gift. If borrowers just took one book each on unlimited loan our shelves
> would soon be denuded of all the popular titles.
>
> And as I grow older and crankier with age I'd be in favour of extended the
> fines we currently impose. Our staff have long since lost count of the
> number of times they've been told by senior citizens that they "don't have
> to pay any attention to the date that's been stamped on the book because
we
> don't pay fines". Ironically, this is the same group that would be most up
> in arms if we did away with date stamps. Personally I'd much rather the
> money spent on labels, stamps, date stamp holders, slugs, ink and all the
> other paraphernalia was spent on books.
>
> Steven
>
> Steven Heywood
> Systems Manager
> Rochdale Library Service
> Wheatsheaf Library
> Baillie Street
> Rochdale, England OL16 1JZ
> Tel: 01706 864967
> Fax: 01706 864992
>
> Feeling glum? Go to
> http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/living/libraries.asp?url=pageOfFun and see what
> real misery looks like!
>
>
> > ----------
> > From: Frances Hendrix[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Reply To: Frances Hendrix
> > Sent: 18 January 2002 14:30
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: 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.
> > > >
> > >
> >
**************************************************************************
> > **
> > > ************
> >
> ************************************************************
> The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
>
> This e-mail may contain information which is confidential, legally
> privileged and/or copyright protected. This e-mail is intended for the
> addressee only. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender
and
> delete the material from your computer.
> ************************************************************
|
