NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/bit/listserv/circplus/2276

Text File | 1993-01-24 | 5.8 KB | 92 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!UKANVM.BITNET!KSIMMONS
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.circplus
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:39:45 CST
Sender:       "CIRCPLUS@IDBSU - LIBRARY CIRCULATION ISSUES"
              <[e-mail]>
From:         kendall <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re: circ errors
In-Reply-To:  Message of Sat,
              23 Jan 1993 16:13:42 EST from <[e-mail]>
Lines: 78

At Watson Library, Univ. of Kansas, Circulation/Reserve (I don't want to
speak for any other unit), 1) an overdue notice for RESERVE items is not
sent until the item has been searched in our 70,000 item reserve
collection; 2) while we can't search for overdue items from the general circul
ating collection before the notices are sent out, we DO search for the item
before it is declared lost (minimum of 60 days overdue, with ALL notices
saying that if one believes the notice to be in error, one should contact the
library); 3) the percentage of people claiming an item has been returned
after the overdue notice has been sent is VERY small; 4) the number of
people placing such items on search, claiming reutnr, is even smaller; 5)
the number of items found and being library error is even smaller.

In other words, just because you have a return error of 1% and a shelving error
 of 2% doesn't mean that the library has screwed up OR that the library should
give the benefit of the "doubt" to the patron.  Think about what you wrote.
1% return error.  2% shelving error.  If it's a return error and a patron
complains, you should be able to find almost all of the misreturned items.
PERIOD.  The fact that you have a 2% shelving error does not compound that
"misreturning" error  to make total errors = 3%.  Instead, you've got a
2% error rate in shelving the 1% error in return rate error.  If my calculator
is working right, that is a 2 THOUSANDS of ONE % return rate error.  And,
if I remember my high school and college math, that is LOWER that the error
rate that could reasonably be expected by CHANCE.

Anyway, our circ system automatically suspends borrowers' privileges if an
item is not returned on that system.   The issue of "claims returned" vs.
suspension of borrowing privileges doesn't enter int it - if the item is
not returned according to the circ system...ZAP.  That way, if there IS the
possibility of an error, the borrower will come to see us.  Then we can search
for the item and see what's the poop.  Just 2 weeks ago we had a faculty
member jumping on our heads about how she and her daughter returned her
daughter's 17 overdue items on Christmas Eve and how lousy the library was
and how we had screwed up.  Well, needless to say, 5 days later, the
daughter returned them (no apology from anyone, of course) as the items
they had returned were not the items WE were talking about.  Ah, public
service...it gives us brownie points (I hope) in whatever comes later.

At any rate, we get tough from the very first, because our stats have shown
that the patron is mistaken FAR more than we are and...most importantly...
if we DON'T do anything, the patrons won't respond.  Heck, why should they
if there is no reason to.  It's not that they are bad...it's just that
they are human, and it's easier to not do something than to do it.  I
would HATE working under your system  and, as the State of Kansas has
appeal venues for library charges, am glad I don't have to.   Oh, having
gone through the state procedure regarding library charges many times, the
fact that someone has not lost an item before has NO effect on how the
situation is handled.  In fact, I have never been able to understand the logic
behind not taking action until the second time something occurs. Would someone
please explain it to me?  Heck, I've had so many experiences with folk going
on in great detail ONLY to find out that they were mistaken, (with the best of
intentions) to do anything other than give the NEXT person examples of folk
who also truly believed they had returned items only to be proved wrong.  My
favorite so far is the department chair (I had to listen to a LOT of that sort
of stuff) who could give me chapter and verse about how and when and where
he;'d returned a certain item...only to have him return the item the next
year because, as it turned out, he had NOT returned the item but, instead, had
put it in his camera case the year before to protect it from the rain on a cam
ping trip, and then had forgotten he'd done it.  But, BOY, did I have to
listen to all the details showing how BAD the library was.  And, sadly, he
never bothered apologizing to those of us he gave a great deal of crap to.
But any apology is irrelevant...it's the fact that this man (as so many
others have done) was trying to make the case that there are SPECIAL groups
of borrowers and that, somehow, THEY don't make the same mistakes that
normal humans do.  By setting up policies that take no action until a
SECOND "thing" implies that the library is always wrong until proven right.
I resent that attitude.  All I ask is that the borrower deals with us and
that there is a procedure that deals with BOTH sides fairly.  Otherwise, we
are just being suckers, allowing anyone to make any claim they want and, if
we disagree with that claim, acting as if we are automatically wrong and
worthy of contempt.  We are NOT worthy of contempt.  Nor are most of us
knee-jerk bureaucrats.  But (sorry, whoever sent this message...Gross some-
one), if we set up systems whereby everyone is given breaks by bending over
backwards (e.g. if we don't take action until the second "claimed returned"),
we are ASKING to be ignored and, when we finally take action, to be stomped
on.  We are responsible for our materials, NOT someone's ego.  These are
SHARED resources we are talking about.  Aaarrrggghhhh..reckon I've said enough!

Kendall