[ILL-L] Reasons for No

[Melissa Jackson]

I've interpreted not on shelf/missing/lost a little differently.  Here's how we do it:

Not on shelf--We looked where it belongs and around that area, and can't find it.  But it's probably around here somewhere.

Missing--Two or three people have looked for it.  It's not where it belongs, on a table, or in the reshelving area.  But it was seen less than a month ago, so it's probably just mis-shelved.  Hopefully we'll find it soon!

Lost--At least three different people have looked for it.  According to the computer it hasn't been used in a year or more.  We don't think it's coming back, and we've marked it 'lost' in our OPAC.  Sorry!

Minor differences, yes.  But that's how I see them.  Too bad OCLC doesn't agree with me.  :) 


Melissa Jackson
ILL Librarian

>>> 
From: 	"Winnefox Interlibrary Loan" <winnefoxill at gmail.com>
To:	"Interlibrary Loan Listserv" <ill-l at webjunction.org>
Date: 	9/3/2008 1:18 PM
Subject: 	Re: [ILL-L] Reasons for No

>
> This is the reason I wish they hadn't combined missing & not on shelf. To
> me missing means lost-we don't have it. Not on shelf means we looked but
> were unable to locate the item on the shelf in the time allowed.  This is
> how we always used the replies and how I interpreted them from others. If
> the reply was missing I considered it unavailable at that library and
> wouldn't retry. Not on shelf on the other hand we would retry.  Right now
> we're using the new combined reply in both instances. Would it be more
> helpful for others if we were to use a different reply for items we searched
> for but didn't find?
>


> Michelle
>




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