[Wactclc-alma] unintended consequence of extending due dates

[Guidry, Wade]

Excellent point, Amy.

You may have already done this... but for others that may encounter the same scenario...

You could now run the bulk change due dates job again, targeting just the ILL patrons via the ILL user group, and update those due dates again.

You couldn't get them back to the original date, but you can probably get a reasonable approximation.

To avoid this issue altogether, if you have not yet updated due dates...  you could run the bulk change due date job separately for each of your major user groups (student, staff, faculty, faculty part time, etc)


Wade Guidry
WACTCLC
Library Consortium Services Manager
wadeg at bigbend.edu<mailto:wadeg at bigbend.edu>
http://www.wactclc.org<http://www.wactclc.org/>
509.760.4474

Pronouns: he/him/his


From: Wactclc-alma [mailto:wactclc-alma-bounces at lists.ctc.edu] On Behalf Of Herman, Amy
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 9:28 AM
To: 'WACTCLC Alma Discussion' <wactclc-alma at lists.ctc.edu>
Subject: [Wactclc-alma] unintended consequence of extending due dates


I realized, when looking at my list of Borrowing Activity Letters that failed to send (due to missing email addresses) after I manually sent them after I extended due dates, that many of them were ILLs.  Our staff enter our ILL partners as individual patrons and I did not think to exclude them from the due date extension job. I suspect other libraries do it differently, but just thought I'd put it out there that this is something we encountered.




Amy Herman, Library Faculty

Olympic College

Bremerton, WA

(360) 475-7256

aherman at olympic.edu<mailto:aherman at olympic.edu>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ctc.edu/pipermail/wactclc-alma_lists.ctc.edu/attachments/20200318/23aa875b/attachment-0002.html>