We get a copy of our holdings from our regional union list coordinator, so
we can edit it every year.  I simply make a copy and put it in a binder for
patrons.  It is the most current list of our serials, and can always be
easily edited.  Also, sometimes for research purposes patrons want to see a
list of our journals only, and this is difficult to obtain on the opac.

Betsy Luce
Anna Maria College
Paxton, MA

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Persing" <persing@POBOX.UPENN.EDU>
To: <SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 10:51 AM
Subject: Print serials lists (2 messages)

> Message #1:
> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 10:27:05 -0400
> From: Edwardo Gil <gile@mail.montclair.edu>
> Subject: Re: print serials lists
>
> I don't think we do a disservice considering the fact that most users
> today (at least in our institution) want to utilize the full-text
> databases so they don't have a need to check the online catalog for a
> periodical title.  We still maintain and generate several copies of
> periodicals holdings list in paper format (it is also available on the
> web linked to our Articles & More page). We keep several copies in the
> periodicals stacks for convenience sake our users don't have close
> access to online catalogs; we also keep a few copies in the microfilm
> room, again since there is no access to computers.  The reference people
> tell me they never use the opac to locate periodicals even though they
> are an amazing group of  bibliographic instructors.
>
> One last note, our periodicals holdings list has been maintained for
> years by librarians and library assistants.  The old card catalog was
> also maintained by people.  These opac's??
>
> Ed Gil
> Periodicals Librarian
> Sprague Library
>
> -----------------------------
> Message #2:
> Subject: RE: print serials lists
> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 09:15:50 -0500
> From: "Ronald Hardy" <HardyR@central.edu>
>
> Greetings!
>
> Our library has 850 active subscriptions, 1250 total serial titles.  We
> maintain a printed list, our "red book" of serials titles and holdings
> information.  One rationale is that it is a very handy alternative to
being
> chained to the computer, as we print about two or three dozen and have
them
> distributed around the library, especially around the serials stacks
> themselves.  It has also been a life saver when the network is down.  It
is
> also used to track changes throughout the course of the year (the serials
> assistant marks her copy with changes, and periodically pens in changes in
the
> copies out in the library), and until last year we also used a copy of the
> redbook to do regular "pick-up-and-count" stats at circulation with hash
marks,
> which we collect all year.  (I have automated this process now, so it is
no
> longer done that way).
>
> We have had discussions about why we keep it, the strongest arguement
against
> it is what Steve stated: the catalog has the most up to date information
and we
> should make everyone look the info up on the catalog.  Nonetheless, the
Red
> Book is 99.5 percent accurate, and the idea of "making" our students use
the
> catalog versus giving them what they want is sometimes (and I mean
sometimes,
> not all the time) idealistic and forced.  While we have an educational
role,
> and as a mission teach students how to search our catalog, our online
journal
> list, and other resources, when a student just wants to know if we have
the
> 1963 Lancet or not the Law of Least Effort picks up the redbook and flips
to
> Lancet.  We are not going to make a student sit down at a computer (if one
is
> available), log in to their campus account (most of our stations require
patron
> logins), and look it up online just to find out if we have this.  This is
one
> example of Least Effort and Good Customer Service.  In most situations in
which
> a student is trying to determine if we have a title, our Online Journal
List is
> the superior tool, as it not only indicates what is in our library
(generated
> by the catalog) but also full text holdings in databases and online
equivalents
> of titles.  This is what we teach them, and this is still the first
choice, but
> the Red Book is a very convenient alternative.
>
> On the other hand, if the generation of the Red Book was a time consuming
and
> expensive process, it wouldn't be worth it.  At one point it was a
complicated
> process as it was generated by a custom serials database which also served
the
> role of annual statistics processing, holdings information, and quality
> control.  Now, however, in the wonderful world of convenience, we merely
need
> to update the 140 page Word document that was previously generated by the
> serials database, line up the page breaks, and print!  It takes about a
day and
> the cost is about $75 tops.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> Ron
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Murden [mailto:stevemurden@MINDSPRING.COM]
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 11:16 PM
> To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject: print serials lists
>
>
> I continue to be amazed at how many libraries maintain
> print lists of their serials.  I was the serials librarian at
> Va. Commonwelath Univ. for 10 years (late 80s to late
> 90s), and we managed to jettison it at least 14 years ago,
> as soon as we got our holdings in the catalog.
>
> I wonder if those same libraries maintain print lists of their
> monograph holdings.  Or their microforms.  Or their realia.
> Or [fill in the blank].  We used the opportunity to educate
> the public in using the online catalog effectively.  I always
> think that to do otherwise does a great disservice to the
> library's users and really underestimates their ability to
> learn to use the catalog.
>
> Steve Murden