[Koha-bugs] [Bug 3230] Automatic Credit when Lost item is returned

[bugzilla-daemon at liblime.com]

http://bugs.koha.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=3230





--- Comment #2 from Brooke <abesottedphoenix at yahoo.com>  2009-05-18 20:39:18 ---
         Make it so, Number 1! Good catch, David. Lost items can generate some
heat for a Library, particularly when the people that return them are in high
places. The only thing I have to add to this is adding a note someplace on the
Patron's record. Some Patrons, who will remain nameless, have been known to
abuse the system often mysteriously returning lost materials to circumvent
fines. If it happens once, it might be a Staff error. When it happens, oh ten
or twelve times, one starts to suspect a Patron.

(In reply to comment #1)
> This would have to be optional, since upon charging replacement cost for a LOST
> item, many libraries will have already ordered the replacement and spent the
> money, regardless of whether the original eventually is returned or not.  
> 

         Judging by the 27 votes over there I'd say the default option on
install might want to be "on" not "off" for this enhancement. I think you can
change out the "many" up there to "some" or perhaps "penny wise pound foolish".
 I believe that old, ugly, DRA had this sort of feature with an audio clue.
You'd probably know better than I what Horizon had.


> Also, a longoverdue LOST item for which a fine is charged is OFF the patron's
> record.  It is no longer checked out.  We can identify that the item was lost
> by items.itemlost.  But there is a data failure when you ask "who lost it?",
> i.e. "who gets the refund?".  
> 

          That's not an optimal data structure then.


> You might assume it was the most recent row in issues or old_issues, but that
> would be wrong if the item was just marked lost by staff, or by the inventory
> process.  It might be good to implement a items.lastissuedto field referencing
> borrowernumber.  
> 

           The staff assigned lost ought probably be better than the
automatically assumed lost date, just as you might want a different sort of
lost for Patron reported losses. I think we had a missing, dusty (meaning not
seen in X amount of time), and a Patron reported variety. The dusty list could
be pulled as a report (obviously not relevant here, but neat in general for
collection development purposes as those could be reconsidered.) 

            Wasn't stated, might be known, but I would certainly hope that the
borrowernumber reference would be an encrypted call for anonymity's sake.


> The fine in this scenario is already paid, too, and potentially moved off to a
> proposed old_accountlines table.  This proposed feature could only operate to
> the extent that (old_) accountlines has not been purged.  
> 


            Or a given Librarian can flex their research muscle and go query
Amazon or Alibris for a rough replacement value. Given that a Library doesn't
charge more than face value, or face value plus a fee (or ideally market or
maximum value) this would work.


> There is a definite problem with accountlines table as is.  Consider that we
> have no no way to identify a Lost Item fine that has been refunded.  Therefore
> if an item was lost, paid for and returned multiple times, there is no way to
> know which of the several "losers" is owed a refund, if any.  
> 

             Maybe I'm not clear on this, but it seems like the relationship
you perceive isn't the status a system ought have. If a book is not checked out
everything is kosher. If it's missing but in the Library, it ought be on the
shelves available to a circ clerk to recheck it in or perhaps out of the
building but in the returns pile. If it is checked out and exceeds a given late
period and is converted to a lost item, it ought to show on check in. Mostly
these options are either in or out. I'm not sure how the situation you're
describing would occur. Do you mean for an agency card or a family or parent
child card?


> The next consideration is performance.  This is happening at the most
> speed-dependent operation: checkin.  Doing a brute force LIKE search on
> descriptions (an ugly hack previously implemented for fines) is unacceptable
> for, say, 5 years of accountlines.  Something like lastissuedto is the only fix
> for that, since then we can at least rely on the accountlines.borrowernumber
> index.
> 

              Again, not sure why last issued wouldn't be the logical first
stop.


> So it would require:
>  ~ syspref
>  ~ accommodation by fines overhaul
>  ~ items.lastissuedto
> 
> Note that no system will accommodate the scenario where the barcode has been
> reassigned, the item deleted, or the patron deleted.  
> 

              Maybe not, but late books are fun to talk about. :D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/10/AR2009051002045.html

              Tsk, tsk, tsk, Bonnie Isman's dishonour in dodging my drinking
duel is rubbing off on her Trustees...


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.koha.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla3/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching all bug changes.