| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Stop wasting time looking for files and revisions! Dokkio, a new product from the PBworks team, integrates and organizes your Drive, Dropbox, Box, Slack and Gmail files. Sign up for free.

View
 

PLS FY2012 Review:  Diana Very Mentor Group

Page history last edited by Kim Miller 8 years, 4 months ago

11/28/11 - This page now closed for comments.

 

Diana Very (GA) Mentor Group:  DC, DE, FL, MD, NC, NJ, SC, VA, WV, Virgin IslandsI

 

Please post any comments regarding the below assigned data elements.  In order to post comments you need to be registered.  For FY2012 we will not be adding any new items.  Only deletions and changes to existing data elements.  When posting comments please identify the item by number and name with the recommendation to keep, change (with a new definition, rationale) or delete (reason for deleting).  

 

If you would like to post others for proposed deletion or change please include number and title of data element and link to data element wiki page.  Please give your recommendation to keep, change (with a new definition, rationale) or delete (reason for deleting). 

 

All Mentor Groups please see PLS FY2012 Review:  Other Administrative and Outlet Data Element Definitions to add comments, recommendations.

 

Data elements assigned for review:

Services (500-551) / Inter-library Loans (552-553)

 

The following items are recommended by IMLS for proposed change/deletion:

N/APLS FY2012 Review: Edie Huffman Mentor Group

 

The following items have comments provided by Census with comments on their review of the data elements:

503 Registered Borrowers - When the libraries purge their records right before reporting data, it causes a large change.  If they would purge earlier in the cycle, perhaps the numbers would increase some by reporting time???

 

552 Interlibrary Loans Provided To and 553 Interlibrary Loans Received From - The data seemed to change more noticeably for FY10 due to joining more consortias.

 

The following items are recommended by SDCs for proposed change/deletion:

 

 

Comments (5)

John DeBacher said

at 5:34 am on Nov 10, 2011

Wisconsin has ranked first in ILL for a number of years, solely because of our predominance of public libraries (with independent governing boards) participating in regional shared integrated automation systems, and system-wide delivery services, coordinated by federated regional library cooperatives. To the patron, though, the ILLs are pretty transparent--they search and place holds on items in a catalog of all materials in the system, and the comes to their library--much as it would in a county library system with branches. At some point we may want to distinguish between ILLs that are conducted outside of a shared catalog/ILS system (through OCLC or other state ILL network) and those conducted within networks where there is no need to enter extra bibliographic records or patron records. Then again, maybe it would be too hard to explain! But the two types of ILL have widely different costs and staff burdens.

BrucePomerantz said

at 2:38 am on Nov 16, 2011

Suggested change: Drop renewals as part of the definition. In fact, exclude renewals.

Reason: I assume that we want to know the cumulative total how many individual uses each material has during a year. To me, an item renewed two times by the same individual is one individual use, not three. If the same person returns an item and a week later checks it out again, that is two uses. Instead of individual uses, the circulation count is of number of loan periods.
Before automated systems, it was too labor intensive to ask libraries to cull out the renewals in the checkout cards, count the new circulations, and then re-order the cards.

We now have automated systems that can differentiate between new circulation and renewal. It is time to obtain a count of individual uses of materials. True, this change will result in a circulation decrease. Reports will need to provide explanations for the decrease for several years. However, because so much is in flux these days, this is the time to begin a new count rather than perpetuate an inflated number.

Tom Newman said

at 3:12 am on Nov 19, 2011

The registered users question is a problem not just because libraries purge their records at different times, but because libraries have vastly different expiration dates. As long as these two variables differ library to library, then the figures we receive will be wildly inconsistent library to library. We should look at replacing this question (in the future) with a count of how many people borrowed library material in the designated fiscal year. Every ILS can produce a report like this, and it will give us a more meaningful measure of how many real library users we actually have.

Tom Newman said

at 3:27 am on Nov 19, 2011

We need more use measures, particularly circulation. Don't we believe,, for example, that the world will want to know how many e-books actually are being circulated in libraries now? And there must be a reason why we are not asking for physical-book, audio, and video circulation, but it sure would be interesting to be able to show how they are trending.

Kim Miller said

at 4:32 am on Nov 30, 2011

Posting for Diana Very
502-ReferenceTransactions Comment: from Diana Very, I feel that this element should be deleted because the numbers are guessed at most of the time and do not include a certain time or length of the transaction characteristics.

You don't have permission to comment on this page.