Alright. >> Should we start? >> Laura? Sure. Yes. Let's go. >> Welcome everybody. This is the Resources and Collections Reports webinar, I'm Jill Holman. I'm Support & Training Librarian at Pals and analytics is one of my specialties. So that's why I'm here. And Laura, will you introduce yourself? >> I'm Laura Hoelter. I'm the cataloguer at The College of St. Scholastica in Duluth. >> So let's quickly go over our plan. We're going to do an introduction. Of course, the majority of our time will be spent on our favorite reports. We will have time for Q and A at the end, you can go ahead and put questions in chat and we'll have a brief wrap up at the end. And we thought it might be helpful to have a tiny bit of background. So the Reports Work Group has been at it for a while. They met last July for the first time and there have been about 15 members, some people came and went. Jennifer Lund did - she was the convener and the goal was to meet data needs, not recreate Aleph reports. Of course, Aleph and Alma are very different. So it's, we can't recreate Aleph reports exactly, even if we wanted to, they did do a survey way back when to understand the consortium needs. they looked at the Alma out-of-the-box reports. And also there are a lot of reports in the Community Zone. So they surveyed a lot of reports. We did do an IPEDS session in January, and also there was an invitation that went out to have everybody help test reports in January. And now we're to the final stage where we are sharing our favorite reports. And there are these four sessions this week. So hooray, and this is my cue to stop sharing. And it is Laura's turn to take it away. >> Thank you, Jill. >> I'm going to share my screen. >> Okay. >> Is everyone seeing Alma? >> Yes. Okay. >> Good. >> All right. >> So this is where we'll begin all good things begin with Alma, right? So analytics, we're going to go to Design analytics. I have not touched Primo analytics myself. And then go to catalog. And we're going to be going to the shared folders. It's a long and winding road. to get to the reports, but we start with the shared folders, then community reports, consortia, all the way down to MnPALS And then you're actually going to bypass reports work group, and we're going to go to resources and collections. And these are the four reports I'll be showing to you today. And the first one is just a personal favorite for the name alone. Aberrant item barcodes poor barcodes. So as you can see in the description, the report contains barcodes that do not have 14 characters. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are a number of system assigned barcodes in Alma or dummy barcodes. Some carrying over from, from Aleph But there may be some that have less than 14 characters that really should have 14 characters. So this can, this report can help you with migration cleanup. And just to run periodically just to check on your barcodes so there aren't any prompts. You don't need to enter any information, just click open. And we have barcode, the number of characters in the barcode, location, title, call, number, description. I added process type field. So that can help us see if, if these items are in technical migration still or what their status is, just kinda scroll down and see what, what looks odd. So this one here that's pretty close, I mean, looks almost normal, but Alma is telling us it has 14, excuse me, 15 digits instead of 14. So there's an extra digit somewhere. I wouldn't be able to know what it was. So I would if I was able to get back to the library, I would just go to the shelf, find this book, I've the call number Go to the shelf find the book, see what the barcode is. Except that this item is on loan, so I either have to wait till it comes back or if I was quite desperate, I could contact the patron and ask them to check the barcode for me and then I would just make the correction in Alma. So this is a good report to run to find errors such as that. Also sometimes ISBNs get scanned instead of barcodes. And so if you had any 978 quote, unquote barcodes that would be a sign to fix those as well. You can see some of these that don't have 14 digits are inputted articles or archives. So those, those are legitimately not 14 digits. The this one here, technical migration. So maybe that was one that wasn't fully cataloged when it came over from Aleph These here, I'm guessing. So all of our Item Barcodes begin with 30116 and these do not. So my guess is that the 3011 got cut-off, so that that would be an easy fix in those cases here, this is this was a item process status for withdrawn videos. So somehow that status got into the barcode field. instead of the barcode That's probably been weeded and withdrawn anyway, some more periodicals, withholdings information in the barcode field. These are in process. They might be at the bindery or in the periodicals office. But I would again, once I will get back to the library, would would check on the status of those. So that's the basics for this report. Again, I think it's a good one to run to do some migration cleanup and then just periodically just to, to check on, on your barcodes. We'll move on now. The next one is new books report. And this was a little tricky because there's really no one good, one good way for all libraries to get a new titles list. Depends on if you have Acq or not you might do it differently than, than if you don't have Acq. You might think, well, why don't we just get a report of based on title creation date? Bib creation date, wouldn't that be good indication for new titles? No, unfortunately, would that It would be so simple, but I did - Bib creation date would be when the bib is created in the  network zone not the institution zone, so that that would not be a good parameter to pull on. We are on Acq, so we can, we can use receiving date. If you're not on acq, maybe try item creation date. And my cat has just jumped up on the table here. I think she wants to find out about new titles. Okay. Let's start then. We'll do a report of items we received in the month of January, pre-Covid times Here we have receiving date. So we have this many items we received in January. You'll notice that the item creation date does not match. If you're on Acq, the items are created at the point of ordering. So that would be before receiving. So receiving date would not be, I'm sorry, item creation. Date would not be a good one for us to go by. I've included a barcode column here, just so you can easily pop that into Alma and check the status of the item and see if it's a good one to include in the new titles list. Same thing here with process type. That just helps me see where these are, if they're catalogued or not, or if they're in process, that one's in process. And I'll explain this local parameter in a bit here. So we can go back. Now, let's say you're, you don't have Acq and you want to We will pull on item creation date. So these are  items that- We had the items created in the month of January. As you can see, that was before, came before the items were actually received. That's just based on our workflow being on Acq And you can see these quite a few of these are still in process. So that would not be item creation date will not be a good parameter for us to, to run for that. Now let me explain what the local parameter is. And this  2020NewFebruary, that's back when we were on Aleph. I started doing adding a local subject heading, 690 field for our new titles based on the year and month that the title was cataloged. And then that's actually what we've been using for our new books list. And then what I did was I contacted ExLibris and put a Salesforce case in, asked them to map the 690 field to local parameter one. And then I can pull on, on the 690 then for new titles list. And I can do that by going to Edit this report now. >> And I'm going to add a prompt here for local parameter one. >> And I'm going to move it up and then save. >> And this might be a good time to mention that Laura is special and can save things in our community area. But usually if you are going to edit a report, you want to save it into your local folder. >> Yes. >> And I can show show that in just a minute. So, the prompt that I just created is saved there. Now I'm going to look for local parameter 1 It's mapped to our 690 field So these are all headings. >> We have in 690 and I'm going to go pick 2020January >> So these are all things that were catalogued in the month of January. And you can see that they're, they're not in process. So they they in theory are on the shelves ready to be checked out or already on loan. But you can see how then for us, this works better than receiving date or item creation date because they were received in December, not cataloged till January And the item creation. The item was created even before then. So that is the a quick look at the new books report. And again, it kinda depends on your workflow as to what criteria you will have and what you will pull on and whether or not you you're on Acq Then we have the shelf list report. And these prompts here are optional. You do not have to fill them all out. If you have a branch, if your library has different branches, you can pull based on different branches. You can pull from a particular collection or process type if you want to find out what you have on loan in a particular collection. And then you can also have it by classification code or a call number range. Now let me just show a few examples of this. Let's say we wanted to see what we have in our popular reading collection. So my colleague who is in charge of the popular reading collection weeds it annually around Christmas time. And then he asks me for a report of the collection and how often things have circulated so I can run this report for him. I have the circ count here as well as last loan date. And I've also included process types so you can see what's out on loan. So this will be handy for situations like that. Also, excuse me, go back if we want to limit it to what's on loan do process type loan. And then this is what is currently checked out from that collection. And you can also pull by classification code kind of a broad range pull. So let's say we wanted to see what we have in the B's in the reference collection. So you might do this type of report maybe for a weeding project or collection development. So this has all the B's in reference. Obviously no circ figures here because its reference. And then finally, last example We'll do a call number range to Get more specific ts b collections of American literature. So here we start with PS 51. And the last one it pulled is PS 595. So it did it did what we asked. it pulled all the PS 500s. And then finally, this was a last minute addition, but I found it last evening it's real handy. Bird's eye view of the collection. I think it's, I like it a lot, so call numbers down on this side, publication year across the top, and the numbers of items in those categories with totals at the bottom. So that I think can be very handy. Report, just to give you a glimpse of your collection and also to be used for weeding projects or Collection Development. A couple of things I would want to look at more closely is what these unknowns are. There's quite a few there. And also get the, apparently they have year other than what's in this range. And those might be some cleanup projects themselves. And then you could use this report in conjunction with the shelf list report, for example, let's look at the AM. So here we know we have seven AMs in our collection, but if you want to find out what they are, slide back to the shelf list report classification code AM. And that will give you the precise titles of those seven. So those are the reports I have to show you now, Laura? >> Yes. There is a question for the Shelf List report, we showed LC but Dewey is possible also, I believe, right? >> Yes. >> I would have to test that and see if it's okay. I would let's go back here. Okay. I will make a note to myself, I did not test Dewey here. I can do that later. Classification code, this is obviously LC. I can go back and see if there's a separate one for Dewey because yeah. >> Yeah. >> We'll have to change something but I see who it is so we can follow up. I believe that is possible. >> So we will look into that. Yes. >> Yes. I should not be. Classificist and only worry about LC So yes, I will make a note to check on Dewey, So thank you. >> A good question. >> It is. And we will also just quickly show that if you find your report and you know you want to edit it, that you will save it in your local folder >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So let's say you fall in love with this report as I did. And you want to actually no editing is needed perhaps. But anyway, okay, you want to use it for, for your purposes. So we just copy and then go up to your folders and you can either paste right there or like I made a separate folder here for reports work group reports, and then paste. And there it is. So now it's in your folder. You are free then to edit, edit and customize as, as you need. >> And will you go back to the catalog again, and just on the left there, if you close the My folders, since you have so many things in there, then open the Shared folders. So I wanted to point out the My Folders is for your login. And then in the shared you have one for your institution. And that's where you can share with your colleagues in your institution to make that distinction. And then we did have another question. Somebody also asked about SUDOC, which I am not sure. So we will have to follow up on that and check on that. >> A good question as well. Thank you. Yes. >> Yes. >> Again, we need to yes. Not not limit ourselves to LC. >> That is the questions right now. Of course, we have time at the end. >> Also, people can ask questions, but let's go ahead and I'll do the overlap reports Alrighty >> So this will be just a quick overview and we're focused on overlap analysis for weeding. And this, the location, haha I can't see it up at the top because of the bar for zoom, but this is in the out of the box reports area. So it's in the shared folders, Alma, titles, reports, and then you see there are six of them. We will not go through all of them. That is a lot. And they are very similar. So we'll just look at two of them. And we will also look at a bonus report that isn't strictly overlap, but it could be useful when you're thinking about weeding. So let's look at the P and E, which is physical and electronic. And you open it and you get a bunch of prompts, probably what is most useful would be the date. So here we're looking at the last five years and we will look at the PE section. If you have a small collection, maybe you could do everything. But if you have a larger collection, you probably want to look at it in chunks because If a report is too big, you will get errors. And then the find overlap by, the default is this title author combined, which is usually what you want. And a little bit more about that. So especially if we think about physical and electronic, it's really hard to match on a control number. There's a lot of variety between ISBNs, ISSNs OCLC numbers, etc. >> You get the idea. >> So they worked out this algorithm that matches on the author and normalized title. And they actually studied it pretty well. And they say that it's close to 100% accurate, so it's pretty cool. Here's an example of what the results look like for the overlap P and E. So if we look at this first example, we see the American Heritage Dictionary of idioms. We have two entries, one is electronic and one is physical. We see on the right there. And you see that the MMS ids are different. So what do we do at this point? You might think, oh, I want to weed something, or you might see things and think, Oh, I want to clean something up. It's up to you, how you act. on these, but it can be really useful information. And then similarly, if we look at the P and P, So physical and Physical, very similar prompts. Again, we're looking at the last five years for loan dates. We'll look at the Zs this time we're going to stay with that title author combined and the results similar, slightly different. If we look at this first one, we have adventuring with books and we find again two different MMS IDs two different ISBNs. And again, it's up to you what you do with it, whether you think cleanup or weeding or no action, whatever choice is appropriate. And let's look at that bonus report. So this is also an out-of-the-box report, but it's in a shared > Alma > inventory > reports. And it's called physical item usage for weeding. And the prompts actually look kind of similar. So here we're still thinking about the last five years for item creation date, last loan date. Let's limit it to just books because again, we don't want it to be too big. We will look at the Zs this time and you get this kind of result screen. And you see very low usage 0 for nearly all of them. So perhaps these are candidates for weeding, this was a brief overview. They actually have a long presentation that ExLibris did, which is available if you want all of the details. And let's move on to Q&A What questions do you have? I will stop sharing for a minute. I am going to try to unmute everybody. If you you can put questions in the chat. you can raise your hand if you're having a hard time. unmuting. I think I unmuted people, so give it a try. What questions do you have? No questions. Very quiet. I am going to put a few links in the chat. So if you want to give us feedback on the reports, there is still a survey open for that. Of course, if you have questions or problems, you can open a ticket with Pals. And the links are in the chat. We'll wait just a little bit more and see if any questions come. Laura, can you think of anything else we should add? >> No, not at the moment other than to say thank you everyone for joining us. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. I think we don't have questions. There is one more session at noon if you'd like to learn about resource sharing reports. Thank you, everyone.