Re: [IUG] Inventory

[Ann Funkhouser <afunkhou at mtsu dot edu>]

Are you using Circa?  I am currently working to get our Circa inventory 
process ready to move forward in as orderly a manner as I can.  I've 
actually been in the stacks scanning and trying to identify problem 
areas.  This is what just happened 5 minutes ago.  I scanned just 3 
shelves of books trying to scan and just listen for beeps (currently 
they are hard to hear - will need to work on that).  When you scan the 
barcode it will beep and then there is an echo beep when the barcode is 
accepted.  I didn't realize that I needed to listen for the echo beep 
and continued scanning.  As a result, I came up with 6 missing items 
that were on the shelf.  I had to go back and scan them in.

You might want to consider having them double check that the items are 
actually missing and not simply skipped during inventory.

Ann Funkhouser
Assistant System Administrator
James E. Walker Library
Middle Tennessee State University
afunkhou at mtsu dot edu


On 4/22/2011 9:30 AM, Cindy Harper wrote:
> I would think that you've missed the opportunity to find out if they're
> misshelved, but if you want to identify the ones that were not inventoried
> and therefore may be missing, you could create a list of
>
> item location = location of interest
> call number = range of interest
> inventory date<  first date you started inventorying
> lchkout<  first date you started inventorying
>
> that would give you a list of books to search for.
>
> At Colgate, we have resolved the discrepancies/missing/misshelved items as
> we scan them, a report at a time.
>
>
> Cindy Harper, Systems Librarian
> Colgate University Libraries
> charper at colgate dot edu
> 315-228-7363
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Taylor, Barbara<btaylor at tnstate dot edu>wrote:
>
> > Well, the scanning has taken place of about half millions items; I did not
> > supervise this project, but the results are in my lap. I am the cataloger
> > and in my twenty-five years or experience, I only thought the cataloger got
> > involved when the missing report was given to her/him to correct the data
> > base. Now that it is done, I truly think it would have been best to scan
> > sections , correct that and move on to the next section. Just not scan a
> > million before looking at the sheets for correcting.
> >
> > By the way, we are an Innovative site. We have full pages of mis-shelved
> > items; I can't say the reason. We have full pages of missing books; I don't
> > know the reason for that, either. We don't have that many missing items in a
> > particular section nor could it be that many mischelved on a particular
> > range.
> >
> > We were trying to go to the shelves and verify the status reported on the
> > sheet, or should it be that we take the report and proceed to fix the
> > problems reported? For instance, if I sat at my computer and take all those
> > pages of full missing items and start recording missing in the database,
> > that could be a problem.
> > But thinking through this thing, that sounds like the way it should be
> > done; are you agreeing that if it the sheet says missing, I should be able
> > to record missing in the database and not have to go and double check. What
> > was the purpose of scanning if we have to go check to see if it is missing?
> > Are you following me?
> >
> >
> > Even though it is done, I would like some insight from those who have
> > completed their  inventory or in the process, did you or are you scanning
> > the entire collection at once? Are you getting print-out like what I
> > described?  Do you understand what I am saying about taking the sheets and
> > fixing the database from what is reported?
> >
> > Any ideas, suggestions, or experiences would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > bt
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > believed to be clean.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> > multipart/alternative
> >   text/plain (text body -- kept)
> >   text/html
> > ---
> > --
> > This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC
> > list
> > Public replies:  INNOPAC at innovativeusers dot org
> > Update your subscription options:
> > http://innovativeusers.org/iug-discussion-list


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



--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
 text/plain (text body -- kept)
 text/html
---