 |
 |
Whether there is a guideline or not does not mean it is followed. my comments are from those sent to me off list (for obvious reasons), and from several different people at different libraries. it does not appear to be uncommon. As I keep saying for the matter re fines, and issues and renewals etc we do need evidence, and to be fair, issues are not really a good indication of quantitative work of libraries.Are you aware that these returns to Cipfa are, by all authorities, done accurately and follow the guidelines as stated? If so, and you can produce such evidence, this would be a huge step in the right direction and put the lid on this matter. If followed , the rules below do differentiate between a renewal and a new issue Which of course is quite fair and correct. f Frances Hendrix Martin House Farm, Hilltop Lane, Whittle le Woods, Chorley, Lancs PR6 7QR, UK tel: 01257 274 833. fax: 01257 266 488 email: [log in to unmask] ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Clayton To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 2:35 PM Subject: Re: fines:secrets and lies or shadow boxing? Dear All The CIPFA guidelines for reporting loans of stock, which all library services complete, clearly INCLUDE renewals. I think their guidance is both clear and fair: "Loans to final borrowers only are to be included. For issues to institutions, playgroups etc. count only the initial issues made by the library staff or computer system. Include: i) Loans of uncatalogued material, e.g. if a book is issued before a record is created... ii) All renewals made in response to an approach from a reader. iii) Inter library loans. Direct loans to own end users only." It is not helpful to start saying something or other is wrong before checking what the position actually is. If you want to make a point please CHECK IT FIRST. Calculations of loans are certainly not "secrets" or "lies" and such suggestions bring the profession in to disrepute. If you don't like a definition, fair enough, debate it, but don't accuse the profession of trying to mislead without doing some basic checking. Doing so is VERY unhelpful. Thanks, Robert Clayton Museum Library & Archive Manager Rutland County Council Tel: 01572 758435 Fax: 01572 724906 Email: [log in to unmask] Web: www.rutland.gov.uk/libraries Post: Oakham Library, Catmos Street, Oakham, Rutland, LE15 6HW 2008 - The National Year of Reading ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "To learn to read is to light a fire; every syllable that is spelled out is a spark." Victor Hugo >>> Frances Hendrix <[log in to unmask]> 15/08/2008 14:04 >>> But if one borrower has an item for a long period (and I don't see a problem with that if there isn't a waiting list), how is that indicative of effective performance of stock?. You have of course satisfied one borrower very much, but it is hardly an indication of the performance of the stock is it? Surely issue figures relate to one book to one borrower on one occasion, not multiple occasions if it is renewed by the same person. I do think this all needs to be bottomed out, but I can see the risks if everyone now decides to come clean on why charge fines, and why massage! issue figures. We need libraries to be 'judged' by a set of standards NOT related to the simple issue of books. remember the Laser work done by PwC on Output measures, much more sophisticated and worth doing. Now we are bandying figures and comments about without the help of hard evidence (and I don't mean the now suspect issue figures). f, well make a guess! Frances Hendrix Martin House Farm, Hilltop Lane, Whittle le Woods, Chorley, Lancs PR6 7QR, UK tel: 01257 274 833. fax: 01257 266 488 email: [log in to unmask] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Day Robert" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 9:25 AM Subject: Re: fines:secrets and lies or shadow boxing? It's only misleading if the initial assumption is that issue figures do NOT contain renewals and given that all authorities report performance data! to the same body subject to the same criteria I don't believe thi s to be the case. Is any authority really claiming that renewals are new issues to a different borrower? I think you can make a good case that it shouldn't happen and that renewals should count separately from issues or, in some other way, be able to calculate issues to unique borrowers. On the other hand, regardless of whether it be an issue or renewal it means that the item in question is in use and thus when looking at the effective performance of a stock item both need to be taken into account. Historically I imagine there was also a case to be made that renewals occupied as much staff time as a new issue and thus needed to be recorded similarly - this is much less so now with the facility for customers to either use the web OPAC and/or use automatd telephone renewal systems. Finally, I have to ask since it's been puzzling me but just what is the lower case 'f' all about? Regards Robert Day Ca! mbridgeshire Libraries, UK -----Original Message----- From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Frances Hendrix Sent: 15 August 2008 08:58 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: fines:secrets and lies or shadow boxing? Well if a renewal by the same person is counted as a new issue to a different borrower, that is misleading. There has been an indication of this in the responses. off line there have been far more worrying trends mentioned that inflate or massage the figures of use etc which have been happening for many many years, and quite honestly astonishes and disappoints me. I know we live in a number crunching world (but these practices seemt o pre date that),where performance tick box data is the norm, but I just thought libraries were different and better. It would appear my 'thought out of the blue' was correct. I look forward to reading you! r thoughts and comments in the Guardian. f Frances Hendrix Ma rtin House Farm, Hilltop Lane, Whittle le Woods, Chorley, Lancs PR6 7QR, UK tel: 01257 274 833. fax: 01257 266 488 email: [log in to unmask] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Loz Pycock" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 9:17 PM Subject: Re: fines:secrets and lies or shadow boxing? > Frances Hendrix wrote: >> Just had a thought. >> Have the statistics on lending been skewed for years? If every renewal >> of a book (maybe even to avoid fines), has been counted by public >> libraries as a new loan and a new borrower, hasn't it been a case of >> misleading information? >> > Please could you explain why you think it's misleading? > > -- > - -- > Loz > > "Dora The Explorer tastes like brain damage." > - http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20070803.html > "I support gay marriage because I believe they have a right to be just > as miserable as the rest of us." - Kinky Friedman > The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you receive this email by mistake please notify the sender and delete it immediately. Opinions expressed are those of the individual and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Cambridgeshire County Council. All sent and received email from Cambridgeshire County Council is automatically scanned for the presence of computer viruses and security issues Rutland County Council Customer Service Centre: 01572 722 577 [log in to unmask] Council Website: http://www.rutland.gov.uk Community Portal: http://www.rutnet.co.uk The views expressed in this email are those of the author and may not be official policy. Internet email should not be treated as a secure form of communication. Please notify the sender if received in error.