1. NEVER include punctuation of any sort in a catalog search. Commas, colons, semi-colons, question marks, exclamation points, and periods should always be omitted.  This issue is fixed in Community Koha 3.2, but at this time special characters may cause faulty results.
2. Since a Keyword search looks at all the data in the record, feel free to MIX SEARCH TERMS from author and title fields. You can even include publication information if you know it. So entering the words “peters” and “bathrooms” would return your item. Just those two words alone.
3. Look for UNIQUE or less common search terms. Presented with a title like Bathrooms : moneysmart makeovers by Rick Peters, you would want to find a UNIQUE or uncommon term:  moneysmart certainly qualifies in that regard. So using that single term moneysmart is all you need to put into the search box. If you know the author’s name, you could put that in your search as well.
   
4. Avoid TOO MUCH detail in Keyword searching. No need for complete titles. Omit articles the and a, an and conjunctions or and and.
5. Remember that Koha uses a fuzzy logic search, and will return near-matches and “mystery” matches because is doesn’t stick with exact search terms. So don’t be put off if you get more hits than you think you should from Keyword searches in Koha. Look at the top 5 hits to see if your desired item is there. After the first five, most of the items below are fuzzy matches. If you don’t see what you need in the first five items, re-try your search using different terms.

Happy Searching,
Sharon

Hello everybody.

As Jim mentioned in his July 13 email, big changes are (finally) coming to NExpress. LibLime, our support and hosting company, is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of PTFS, headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. We have been working with the PTFS transition team over the last few months, and have negotiated an upgrade path that allows us to continue with our fall migration of Leavenworth Public Library into the NExpress Shared Regional Catalog.

Our current Koha installation will be upgraded with a newer code base which includes over a year of changes and improvements in both functionality and features, including some PTFS software enhancements.

We have a schedule now for this upgrade process, which will occur on Saturday, August 14 & Sunday, August 15. LibLime will do a database backup, and then run the upgrade scripts, which take about 2 hours. Once LibLime has confirmed that the scripts have run successfully, the last step is the reindexing, which will take 6-7 hours. LibLime is planning on doing the upgrade after hours on Saturday and Sunday, so there will be no need for offline circulation. It will take approximately 10+ hours to complete the upgrade over the weekend. Please do not do any catalog work during this period.

We should have a test instance of the new PTFS Master Koha available for our use very soon. LibLime will refresh our test instance with an up-to-date copy of our production database and upgrade it to PTFS Master. We should have several weeks to “play” and get used to the way it works in a test environment.

We are working now on developing training and support materials highlighting the many new features of the upgraded PTFS Master Koha. We think you’ll be very pleased with the changes!

We have already had a successful preliminary upload of Leavenworth’s data into an upgraded instance, which we are busy testing. Leavenworth Public Library is on track to join NExpress “live” on September 8. Leavenworth will bring almost 100,000 new items into our shared catalog.

Thank you all for your patience. We are very pleased to be moving ahead with this major Koha upgrade, and will do everything we can to make the process a smooth one.

The Calendar (under Tools in Koha) will affect your circulation (and overdues) based on how it is set.  The Director account has permission to update the Calendar. There are basically three ways you can set your Koha Calendar, which is done individually for each library:

1. No holidays

• Koha counts every calendar day when determining a checkout period.
• An item with a 7 Day checkout that is checked out on Monday Nov 23 will be due seven days later, on Monday Nov 30.
• It doesn’t matter if the library is open or closed on any of these days.
• Overdues are determined in the same way — an item that is 7 Days Overdue will get a First Notice.
• So, to use the example above, the unreturned item checked out on Nov 23 will trigger a First Overdue Notice on Dec 7.

2. Holidays only (Yearly and Unique)

• Koha counts every calendar day when determining a checkout period EXCEPT for specific holidays “blocked out” on the calendar, like Thanksgiving, Christmas, Independence Day, etc.
• Koha just skips the holiday in determining checkout periods.
• Using the example above, a Koha Calendar with just yearly Holidays set would skip Thanksgiving Day on November 26.
  • The item checked out on Nov 23 would be due on Tuesday Dec 1.
  • The First Overdue Notice would be sent on Dec 8.
• The benefit of setting your Calendar to skip holidays is that items won’t ever be due on days like Thanksgiving or Christmas.

3. Recurring weekly holidays (days library is closed)

• Koha will skip every day the library is not open for business when counting checkout periods.
• For a library that is closed on Saturday and Sunday each week, an item checked out on Monday, Nov 23 would be due Wednesday, Dec 2.
• HOWEVER, if the Thanksgiving holiday is also “blocked out” in addition to the regular days the library is closed, then the item would be due on Thursday, Dec 3.
• So a 7 Day checkout period could, in this scenario, encompass 10 actual calendar days, since the Calendar settings tell Koha to skip counting Thursday, Saturday and Sunday as checkout days.

Right now, libraries are using all combinations of 1, 2, and 3.  You do not HAVE to use any holiday settings whatsoever.

Mickey

1. LOST Report
2. LOST Report ALL
3. LOST Report ONLY showing null values for replacement cost

Here’s a recap of the way the Koha LOST status feature works, as a reminder:

• Manually changing a checked-out item’s status to Lost will remove the item from the patron’s checkout page, but add a replacement cost to the patron’s account under the Fines tab. Often, this will result in an account debarment, since the debarment ceiling is $10 and most items cost more than that.
• If a Lost item is Checked In, the replacement cost is removed (reversed) from the patron’s fine account automatically. However, any overdue fines accrued prior to the item’s being marked Lost will remain on the account. You can forgive or pay these manually if you choose. Or not.
• The returned item’s status will become AVAILABLE again in the catalog, but the debarment on the patron account will NOT be automatically lifted. You will need to do this manually.

Since applying the Lost status effectively severs the link between the patron and the item in the Checkouts page, there needed to be a different way to identify Lost items via the Fines account. The LOST Report does just that, identifying by name and cardnumber those patrons that have items in their Fines account, along with the date/time when the item was given a LOST status.  It lists all currently lost items, excluding those which have been returned. It’s sorted by patron, and you will see multiple entries for patrons with more than one lost item. The current amount outstanding for each lost item is in the last cell of each row. Here’s some sample data from the report:

10030070039X0    Miller    Leslie Q.    Lost Item  00105000634847    9/21/2009 12:36    $16.00
10030070039X0    Miller    Leslie Q.    Lost Item  00105000429354    9/23/2009 10:52    $25.00
10030070039X0    Miller    Leslie Q.    Lost Item  0003000000781    9/23/2009 10:53    $10.00
10030070039X0    Miller    Leslie Q.    Lost Item  0003000008926    9/23/2009 10:53    $15.00
10030070039X0    Miller    Leslie Q.    Lost Item  0003000010689    9/23/2009 10:53    $15.00
10030070039X0    Miller    Leslie Q.    Lost Item  00105000609229    9/23/2009 10:54    $17.00
10030070039X0    Miller    Leslie Q.    Lost Item  00105000408820    9/23/2009 10:54    $25.00
1003X99003039    Mirett    Mark N.    Lost Item  00103000402361    11/3/2009 14:33    $19.33
1003X99005892    Myles    Samuel R.    Lost Item  0003000002969    9/21/2009 12:12    $15.00
1003X99005892    Myles    Samuel R.    Lost Item  00105000452332    9/21/2009 12:12    $25.00
1003X99006021    Nunn    Grace Ellen    Lost Item  00105000336914    2/12/2010 10:59    $10.00
1003X99006021    Nunn    Grace Ellen    Lost Item  00105000344063    2/12/2010 10:59    $15.00
1003X99000909    Otembo    Odenga    Lost Item  00105000429990    9/22/2009 13:44    $25.00
1003X99000909    Otembo    Odenga    Lost Item  0003000010425    9/22/2009 13:45    $15.00

This report will allow you to identify patrons with Lost charges, as well as the specific Lost item by barcode, and to assess the dollar value of Lost items per account.

*The second “LOST Report ALL” outputs the entire NExpress catalog’s LOST items, ordered by Library.

*The third “LOST Report ONLY showing null value for replacement cost shows all items that have a NULL (zero) value for Lost Items” shows accounts where an item has been returned, and the replacement charges reversed; it also shows accounts where an item-linked WRITEOFF has occurred, or cases where the replacement cost is zero for a Lost item. You can run this report by inserting your Library Code into the SQL statement and running the report yourself.

Please let us know if you have any questions about these reports.

A lot of valuable information about holds, transits, holdings and loans can be gleamed from the Details table of a Bib record in Koha.  An illustrated discussion:

1. Location – The location shown is the Owning Library.  Libraries can see how many copies of an item they own.
2. Status – Checked out.  You can see who has the item checked out and when it is due.  The patron name is a hyperlink to their patron account.
3. Status – Waiting.  This item is on hold for a patron, waiting at the pick up branch the patron selected.  This status is triggered when an item sent from one library to another is checked in and the hold is confirmed as received.  This hold will now be OUT of the holds queue and give a status of Waiting.
   
4. Status – In Transit to Fill a Hold.  This is shows that an item has been been confirmed to fill a hold and is in transit from one library to another.  As soon as a hold is confirmed and routed to the pick up library, the Current Location of the item changes to the pick up library (even if the item is temporarily in a courier bin at the sending library).
   This status also shows that this item has been ‘linked’ to a patron for the hold.  In the Holds Queue, this will appear as an “only item” hold instead of a “next available” hold.
5. Status – Checked out and On Hold.   This is an example of a Copy-level or item-specific hold, rather than a Title-level or ‘next available’ hold.  Only staff can place copy-level holds and only the specific copy of the title associated with the patron will fill the hold, not the next available item.

Below is the Annotated Agenda

Welcome : NExpress Shared Catalog Overview and Vision and Values Statement

Introduction to the Patron Catalog (.doc)

• Catalog Overview – Recorded November 2009
• New My Account Overview video for Patrons – Recorded November 2009

Introduction to the NExpress (Koha) Staff Client (.doc)

• Checking In and Check In and Confirm – Silent recordings from April 2010
• Checking Out Items Using the Staff Client – Recorded November 2009
• Post and Video:  Known Issues: Placing Holds
• Issuing Library Cards and editing patron records (not privacy-proof yet)
• Staff Client Advanced Search – See below for additional Search help
• Post and Video (upon request): Pulling the Holds Pick List
  • Managing Holds in NExpress (.pdf) – New instructions, May 2010

Troubleshooting and Questions

Follow up Training, aka Homework:

• Searching and Search Training and Search-related Bugs and Barcode Searching-  These posts include videos and exercises to familiarize yourselves with the search capabilities of Koha’s Staff Client, along with an explanation of a Known Issue related to Subtitles NOT displaying in the Staff Client (while they DO show up in the OPAC). NOTE: Do not include the “?” character in searches, it will skew your results.
• Managing Purchase Suggestions – instructions and video
• Working with the Koha Label Maker – Special thanks to Claudia at Atchison for this.
• Transfers to Receive Report – How to instructions for using this Circulation report to see what items are in transit to your location
• Managing the Holds Shelf - How to instructions for using the Holds Awaiting Pick Up circulation report to clear out expired holds from your shelf
• What to do with Agent Interlibrary Loans – Best practices
• Tags and the Tag Cloud – Ideas from Susan at Hiawatha
• Handling Patron Accounts and Fines – Best practices
• NExpress FAQs
• Known Issues to be aware of:
  • Canceled Holds in Transit Bug

Minutes (OK, more like notes…with links to additional information, blog posts and Web sites)

1. PTFS/LibLime update with Jim Minges

• LibLime is now a division of PTFS, a company relatively new to supporting Open Source Software.
• Additional support person has been added to the Koha support team there.
• Seeing faster response times to support requests
• We expect an upgrade to our system in the next few months — no other details available at this time.
• We will start submitting enhancement requests to PTFS.
• Conflict has been occurring between PTFS and the international Koha community over who controls Koha’s intellectual property, such as trademarks, domains (koha.org), the code repository and the bug repository.
  • As a result of the conflict, www.koha-community.org was started by the international Koha community.
  • NEKLS is hosting this site on the KLOW server.
• PTFS is not pushing us to LLEK and the previous management at LibLime is gone.
• Kim Beets asked about programming that we have already paid for — will it be implemented between now and the update?
  • Jim noted that a regular update to our Installation would correct many of the current issues in the system. Patches, bug fixes and feature enhancements are available, but none have been applied to our system since last June.  For example, the patch to fix the renewal bug 3378 was created in late June 2009, but was never applied to our system.
• Amy Begg DeGroff — last year’s Tech Day speaker — is the transition manager for the LibLime division.  Mickey is in contact with her about our needs.
• We have no target date for updates at this time.  Sharon hopes that when we are ready to get regular updates again, we will follow the model set with our previous vendor where a test installation will be upgraded, we will do testing, and then the updates will be applied to the production server after we’ve signed off on everything.

2. Policy committee recommendations with Robin Flory and Eric Gustafson

• Policy recommendation 1:
  Collection of fines can occur at any NExpress library. Money doesn’t have to be sent back to the library the fines initiated from.
• Policy recommendation 2:
  Damaged/lost/replacement fees can be collected at any library, but will then be sent on to the library that originally owned the material.
• Policy recommendation 3:
  With materials that are on lost or long overdue at another library, it is the owning library’s responsibility to contact the borrower’s library for replacement.
  • Discussion:  There is a report for identifying items long overdue at another library.  Please do not contact the patron; contact the library where the transaction occurred.
  • Options: Libraries should send invoices, that can then be paid out of the library’s own funds or through the State Library’s material replacement fund.
• Overall discussion:
  • System-wide, patrons are debarred at $10. Debarrment based on overdue notices is set library by library.  Dollar amount of fines is system-wide. The debarment is library-by-library.
  • The default setting for debarment is after the 3rd notice.
  • The issue of fines being waived by a non-fining library was discussed and the committee recommends that libraries respect the fine and collect them.   In return, fining libraries agree to waive having the fines reimbursed if the fines are at least collected.
  • The committee was not recommending that non-fining libraries make any additional effort to collect fines, but to clear a patron’s fine if requested to do so as a customer service.
• Confidentiality will be discussed after this meeting by the committee.
• Robin and the Committee brought up the “Fan Club” issue, where a library, on behalf of patron’s who have signed up for this service, places a large block of holds on new best-selling titles at a single time. In principle, the fan club is a wonderful customer service used by one active and one incoming library. But, at times it may not be ‘playing nice’ to the rest of the consortia.
  • Possible solutions suggested: buy more copies of these particular titles or libraries with fan clubs could place holds only on the local copies (which may mess up the system). Maybe have a local hold copy (or two) at the library for these fan clubs?
  • Proposal: If you will be placing holds for your patrons, you have a local hold copy that you do that for and then you buy a copy for the consortia. If you can’t afford to buy an additional copies, have your one copy on local hold for two months, and then release it from local hold. If it stops being circulated at your local library before those two months are up, go ahead and release it. –Diana Weaver & Rita Higley developed this statement.
  • Further discussion: What’s the difference between a book being checked out by your local patron or by the consortia?
  • Some libraries display a list of new titles or photocopy the book cover and put them on the new books shelf (Marketing new materials post). If the book is checked out, the patron can take that place-saver copy to the front desk and ask for the book to be put on hold.  The item is either available or not available, why the item is not available is not shared with the local patron.  Patrons will get books faster through the consortia.  Is there proof, though?

3. Local Holds testing with Sharon (skipped ahead in the Agenda due to the nature of the discussion)

• From Sharon: Notes about this are here for further scrutiny.
• The testing of 5 titles for 6 weeks showed that when the majority of items are cataloged with an unrestricted item type, patrons with title-level holds (next available) moved up the Holds Priority list a place a day, on average.

• Patron A went from 33rd to 19th to 10th to checked out in 4 weeks on a ‘Next Available’ title-level hold while
• Patron B went from 21st to 12th to 7th to waiting in 4 weeks on an “Only item” item-level hold.
• Patron C went from 27th to 19th to 12th to waiting in 4 weeks on a title-level hold
• For Worst Case, which had the most available copies, the average went up to 14 places in 7 days.

• As a ‘control’ – Sharon looked at House Rules and in 6 weeks, Patron A with a title-level hold went from 52nd to 5th place – 47 places in 6 weeks or an advancement of about 7.8 places per week. For the Patron B who had an item-level hold, they went from 9th to 3rd in 9 weeks!
• Not everyone in the consortia chose to participate in the test.
• The tests resulted in identifying other issues with the catalog: 3 bugs, including a major flaw in the system related to simultaneous transactions.
• Processing On Order Items using the On Order Item Type: On Order is an unrestricted item type. If you’re cataloging an on order item that will eventually be a restricted item, catalog it as the restricted item type from the beginning.  Continue to use the Status of “Not for Loan (Ordered)” to keep on order books from showing on your Pick List.
• Managing the Holds Shelf: holds are expiring and lingering for 2-3 weeks before being moved on to the next hold — please check your holds shelf list more often. New best sellers are the biggest culprits.

Back to 2. Policy Committee Discussion resumes, with several suggestions and additional facilitation by Royce Kitts…

• Proposal on the floor:  Smaller libraries can make their single copy of a best seller Local Hold for two months, then return it to the consortia after two months. The libraries with fan clubs, 1 copy for consortia, as many copies as needed for fan clubs local hold only.
• Continued discussion about opening up entire collection vs. using restricted item types, such as walk in and local hold only.
• Many are open to this. But many libraries only buy one copy. Many that are able to afford only one copy are willing to share them. Paula uses Local Hold on high-demand items just to be able to everything processed before having to send stuff out.  Other libraries feel that local hold is used on select items for a limited time to satisfy their taxpayers who come to their library and expect to find the new books advertised in the newspaper or on the Web site.
• Others felt ‘We’re in a consortia and in it together.’
• Kim Beets wanted to know if there is software-based way to have a Consortia-wide fan club? For example, a list that consortia patrons can subscribe to, to be added as holds on a popular author or title, where the holds list is randomized.  Sharon: Give the NEKLS staff time to investigate.  Kim Baker noted that SIRSI has this feature.
  UPDATE – Yes, this may be in Koha:  Bestseller’s Club and email notification enhancement bug by PTFS (thanks, Liz)
• Royce posed the question, “How are we all going to be local entities, when we’re in a consortia together?”  While we keep discussing local hold issues, but the crux of the issue hasn’t been decided.
• Is the system working OK, with not everything in collections being opened up all the way? No consistency at the moment. Is this okay?
• Jim reiterated that there is no written statement anywhere what the practice should be on holds. In our values statement, it talks about 95% of the collection being open to the to the public.

Proposals for Consideration:

1.  All materials are open and available to the consortia. There are no holds restrictions. Local holds are eliminated. –Jim
2. A library could catalog some items  as Walk-in only. Even the local library’s patrons couldn’t place the item on hold. Firm limit on how long a title could be placed on walk-in only. –Jim
3.  Every library agrees to give at least one copy of an item to the consortia.  If a library wishes to have a restricted copy, they will need to purchase a second copy for that purpose. -Diana

#1 — This one will never be a consensus. Libraries are saying it won’t ever work.  What about testing it for several months, on materials being cataloged from this point forward?  Others say, start with the least onerous policy of “Every library agrees to give at least one copy of an item to the consortia.”

Results: Voting on the Proposals for Consideration:

• Proposal 1: 9 votes
• Proposal 3: 8 votes
• None of the above: 2 votes

Jim stated that the ‘Consensus recommendation is that the entire collection is open to the consortia until August as a test. There isn’t going to be a unanimous adoption of this recommendation.’  The recommendation will be reevaluated at the August 26 NExpress Users Group meeting.

Back to 3. Koha/NExpress Catalog News with Sharon

• Hold ratios Circulation report: This report is showing that the top holds are 50 percent books and 50 percent DVDs.  If you really want to make your patrons happy, buy more DVDs.  This report is useful for collection development.
  
• Leased Books Collection update. Send Heather recommendations for titles for the leased collection. We use the Hold Ratios report to build the list, as well as reviews and print run information. Many titles will be added in June, because of summer releases.  Release dates are added to the title, following Kathleen Schram’s example at Bonner Springs.  The leased books are to alleviate holds.

4. Communication Survey with Sharon

• Currently, these are the ways NEKLS communicates with NExpress members:
  • Email distribution list, www.nexpresslibrary.org blog, News feature on the staff client, and Users Group meetings.
• The group decided that Email is the best way to communicate, with with the News feature coming in second.  Both can include links to longer blog posts at nexpresslibrary.org.
• Libraries need to send NEKLS the contact information for all staff members who need to  be added to the nexpress email distribution list.

5. Open Discussion

• Cataloging: duplicate record amounts increasing. Report to NEKLS when you run across them.  Could be another instance of simultaneous transaction issues.
• Label Maker: problems currently going on. We are aware of that. Newer version of the label maker (when it gets added to our system) takes care of the problems.
• Claudia asks all users of the label making to DELETE old label batches.
• Withdrawn status v. deleting an item: Do you use this status? If you’re not going to be reusing the record, delete the item. Don’t use the Withdrawn status.  It does not actually ‘do’ anything and withdrawn items appear on pick lists.
• When Reporting problems: It’s important to also call at the time that the problem occurs, so we can see the problem and attempt to replicate it better.  Screencasts, screenshots and as many specific details as you can provide are much appreciated.

Those present:

• NEKLS: Mickey Coalwell, Heather Braum, Jim Minges, Sharon Moreland, Liz Rea and Brenda Hough
• Atchison: Diana Weaver, Claudia Bosshammer-Bilimek and Mary Domann
• Royce Kitts, Tonganoxie
• Nancy Stover, Williamsburg
• Jenne Laytham, Basehor
• Amy Parton, Effingham
• Sue Peavey, Linwood
• Hiawatha: Anne Arnesen and Eric Gustafson
• Ottawa: Robin Flory, Lori Clayton, Linda Knight
• Karen Holthaus, Seneca
• Jerie Tichenor, Meriden
• Paula Ware, Oskaloosa
• Katherin Jones, McLouth
• Kim Beets, Bonner Springs
• Baldwin City: Claudia Gillentine and Becky Hayes
• Amy Lassiter, Winchester
• Jaclyn White, Rossville
• Leavenworth: Kim Baker and Kelly Fann
• Jeanette Stromgren, Osage City
• Sarah Walker-Hitt, Lyndon
• Rita Higley, Horton
• Peggy Waldman, Overbrook
• Dan Knupp, Silver Lake
• Eudora: Marlene Evinger and Alisha Whitis

Agenda:

• PTFS/LibLime update (Jim & NExpress team)
• Policy Committee recommendations (Robin Flory et al)
• Koha/NExpress catalog news (Sharon)
  • Local Holds Test results
  • On Order item type and cataloging
  • Simultaneous holds bug
  • Holds ratio report
  • NEKLS Leased book program
• Communication survey (Sharon, Brenda)
• Open discussion

While the original checkout period is correctly taken from the transacting library’s circ policies,  the renewal is incorrectly governed by the owning library’s circulation rules, which may differ from the transacting library’s rules.

The only remedy for this situation right now is to check the item in, and then check it back out, using the “sticky” calendar to adjust the due date.

A Koha patch for this bug has already been written, and will be applied to our install as soon as our upgrade schedule has been determined by PTFS.

When a patron is logged into their account in the Online Public Access Catalog, they can place a Purchase Suggestions from the “My purchase suggestions” tab or if they cannot find what they are looking for in a search, they are prompted to make a Purchase Suggestion:

What happens to all of these Purchase Suggestions?
How do you, as the Library Director or Selector, access these suggestions?

Follow the step-by-step instructions below, or watch a video where Royce at Tonganoxie demonstrates this module.

• Log into the Staff Client using a TECH or DIRECTOR account
• Go to the Acquisitions Module (More > Acquisitions)
  
• Select the Manage Suggestions link
  
• Review the Pending Suggestions and select the appropriate Reason, and choose to Accept, Reject or Delete the Suggestions.  The Reason you select will appear on the Patron’s “My purchase suggestions” page.
• Follow through with ordering the item, then update the status again, if you so choose, once it is cataloged and processed.
• The Patron can watch the progress of their Purchase Suggestions.