[ILL-L] RE: conditionals, deflections, etc (was policyproblem)

Wed Oct 3 14:39:34 EDT 2007

Meg and others,

1 - lacking.  We use it and interpret others use of it as you have described below - that issue/vol of a series/set is missing but the title and other parts are owned.

2 - retry.  We have used this when we have had a very short term and sudden staffing problem (to mean we can't look at this today but will give it a go if you come back later).  When we have received this message we have not assumed it to mean the item will be available later, but that it might be available or that staff at the other library cannot give consideration to the request now but should be able to do so at that later date (which might be because of a temporary staffing problem but could also mean the item is expected back in the library by then or out of processing or the postage machine is expected to fixed by then, etc.)

Laura Barnard
Interlibrary Loans
Seattle Public Library (UOK)
206-386-4601
ill at spl.org

>>> "Butler, Margaret" <mbutler at nyls.edu> 10/3/2007 11:22 AM >>>
Folks,
We have been working to standardize when we use which reasons for no.
As we reviewed the various reasons, we had a couple of questions about
other libraries' practices.  

1.  When do folks use lacking?  We were thinking of using lacking when
we are missing an issue or volume from a sequence that we own--say, we
don't have the first issue of the 2003 Harvard Law Review, but we have
all the other issues around it and it is not a matter of the item having
not arrived in the library.  Would you use lacking or some other reason
for no in this situation?

2.  How do you feel about using the "try after" date?  In discussing
this, concerns were raised that it would make a borrower think that the
title would certainly be available (if the item is checked out/on loan
and may or may not be returned on time).  I guess I am wondering if
anybody really uses the "try after" date.  If the item is in use/on
loan, there's a no for that, and that implies that one could try again.

Thank you in advance for your time and thought.

Meg 

Meg Butler
Reference Librarian
New York Law School
212-431-2148

-----Original Message-----
From: ill-l-bounces at webjunction.org 
[mailto:ill-l-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Melissa Jackson
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 1:53 PM
To: Interlibrary Loan Listserv
Subject: RE: [ILL-L] RE: conditionals, deflections, etc (was
policyproblem)

We get occasional requests for the DVD  "Everything is illuminated"
despite having all video recordings deflected.  The director says
somehow one of the fields got changed to mark it as serial.  This is
odd, considering we don't lend serials either, the "videorecording" code
is in the record, and we don't mess with the fields that mark format.
(He told me which one it was, but I forget since I don't speak
Cataloging.)   I've reported it to OCLC twice, but have never gotten a
response.

Still, the odd one or two that slip through each quarter are FAR less
than the requests we used to get.  In the grand scheme of things, it's
no biggie.  :)

Melissa Jackson
ILL Librarian

>>> 
From: 	"Campbell, Heather" <HEATHERC at coj.net>
To:	"Interlibrary Loan Listserv" <ill-l at webjunction.org>
Date: 	10/3/2007 1:12 PM
Subject: 	RE: [ILL-L] RE: conditionals, deflections, etc (was
policy problem)

I know that -in our case- the "slip throughs" happen because: 1) someone
mis-cataloged it or 2) because the request came through as a photocopy
request instead of as a book request.  Mixed media items evade the wily
deflection net on occasion, but deflection has been a very helpful tool
for us.

Heather Campbell
Special Services ~ Interlibrary Loan and Books By Mail Jacksonville
Public Library Jacksonville, Florida 32202
ill at coj.net    904-630-2985 

-----Original Message-----
From: ill-l-bounces at webjunction.org 
[mailto:ill-l-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Sarah Lee
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 1:59 PM
To: ill-l at webjunction.org 
Subject: [ILL-L] RE: conditionals, deflections, etc (was policy problem)

I have longed for more "reasons for no" since inception - one for "don't
lend AV" and one for "too new", these are the bulk of our requests it
seems.  We conditional people now for the new  and
non-circ-but-will-copy things, but it sure would be easier to do them
with the rest of the no's.
Delection by pub date would be a dream!

BTW, why do youyou think things slip through deflection once in a while?

Sarah L. Lee 	
Reference Services Mgr./ Webmaster		
Mobile Public Library		
PO Box 1587			
Mobile AL 36633-1587
http://www.mplonline.org 

e-mail slee at mplonline.org 
ph. 251-208-7085	
fax 251-208-5865

_______________________________________________
ILL-L mailing list
ILL-L at webjunction.org 
http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/ill-l 
_______________________________________________
ILL-L mailing list
ILL-L at webjunction.org 
http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/ill-l 

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

_______________________________________________
ILL-L mailing list
ILL-L at webjunction.org 
http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/ill-l 
_______________________________________________
ILL-L mailing list
ILL-L at webjunction.org 
http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/ill-l