Jugsaw Puzzle

The Jugsaw Puzzle was the final, and I daresay quieter last leg of the 2010 staff engagement intiative. I attribute this, in part, to the fact that we were all well fed (from a congratulatory party held for Rachel on her recent reclassification to Technical Services Manager),  on cake (yummy choclate), tarts, chips, nuts, Martinelli’s sparkly. A very rich food fare for any activity in the afternoon. But promptly at 2:15 the game got off to a lively start, everyone rapt in attention and trying to match together 300 minute puzzle pieces. At the end of the alloted forty minutes there were clamours for more time from all, as 45 minutes just was not enough apparently. In the end all teams manged to put together some semblance of an almost completed puzzle and we had a winner.

Here are the specifics:

There were four teams (three teams of three and one team of two):
Team 1 Rachel, Juan and Peggy
Team 2 Andrew, Adam and Arlene
Team 3 Viasha Frances and Cheryl
Team 4 Kathleen and Dot (somewhat of a disadvantage as reflected in the results)

Congratulations to Team 2 (Andrew, Adam and Arlene) who won the competition and were eager recipients of pink (or was it fuschia)  and blue colored ribbons. Second placed winners (also receiving ribbons)  were Team 3 Viasha, Frances, and Cheryl (yea). Third place winners were Rachel , Juan and Peggy and fourth (perhaps reflective of the fact that there were only two pairs of hands devoted to the task at hand) Kathleen and Dot.

Thanks to the organizing team Kathleen, Arlene, Peggy  and Dot who graciously allowed me to take some of their time to plan the congratulatory celebration. Thanks to Andrew for taking the pics, and a big THANK YOU to Dot who not only supplied the four boxes of puzzles, but patiently bagged all the corner pieces. I wonder what would have been the results if we all had to start from scratch without the corners…


Leave a Comment


The competition was tough in the early going, with everyone tied except for Cheryl and Viasha. The team that won the second round, and would take a commanding lead, was that of Andrew and Rachel. They had a real chemistry led by the clue giving of Rachel with gems like the one she used for Alamo, “The first three letters are a library association.” As in everything else it takes two to tangle, and Andrew knew what Rachel was thinking as when he guessed six-pack on a clue of pop culture, “Do you watch The Jersey Shore?” Kathleen had one of the funnier clues given, “When a frog poops, what do you call it?” Frances answered “mapple” from the promptings of Juan, which was close but not quite the actual word of “maple.” Juan had the funnies clue of the day, “The first word is when you hit someone in the face…,” this was for the word beatbox. Frances didn’t guess beat, and when Juan prompted her with the clue of, “What you get books from Coutts in,” she answered, true to her Technical Services training, “shipments.”

Arlene “The Enforcer” kept score and on the move as the pack of cards, the timer, and the whiteboard changed hands and slid along the tables. For a sit down game we all got pretty red-faced and out-of-breath. The anguish of not guessing the word that your partner was agonizing over, or, saying the taboo clue word brought even the most confident wordsmiths among us to our knees. We gained and lost points as others shouted: Wrong pronunciation! You forgot the timer! I saw the whiteboard with the answer! “You could have said….you should have…”

Many of the words had at least 2 opposite meanings and giving one aspect first and then another will put your partner in a tizzy.

What American TV show has anything to do with pagan totems? An idol.

What is an animal you can drive? A jaguar.

What famous dog is also an article of clothing for the religious? A yarmulke.

Name an illegally used drug in sports that is also a pedophile. Steroids.

Final scores:

Rachel and Andrew, 15

Susi and Kathleen, 9

Adam and Peggy, 8

Frances and Juan, 5

Cheryl and Viasha, 3

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Leave a Comment

TS Staff Engagement Pictionary Challenge

Congrats to Team C (Cheryl, Kathleen, & Rachel), winners of the Pictionary Challenge! 

Members of all teams performed admirably in what proved to be quite an exciting and challenging artistic exhibition. However, members of Team C demonstrated artistic superiority and proved themselves deserving of the title “big fish in a small pond”. 

Team B (Adam, Susi) came in 2nd, followed by Team A (Frances, Juan, Viasha) in 3rd place, and Team D (Andrew, Peggy) in 4th place.

With artwork ranging from regurgitating fish to a lump in a log and an efficient, multitasking MC, a fine time was had by all. One cannot soon forget the pumpkin-wielding ghost sketched by a lefty whose brush never left the canvas or the rainforest with trees but alas no rain. Or the boot-shaped state of Mississippi and the very impressive rendering of a car’s underbelly to portray an axle. There were headbands, and snakes, and halos and trunks. A giraffe, an igloo, a door, and a hatchet. Even chopsticks and clover and honeycombs and more. I have named but a few of the Picasso-like creations rendered by these talented teams of budding artists. (Honorable mention: The Octopus!).

Cookies, chips, and soda added a classic and tasty touch to this gala showcase of contemporary art!

Team Scores

Round 1A Team A = 2 ; Team B = 3

Round 1B – Team C = 3 ; Team D = 3

Round 2A – Team A = 3 ; Team D = 1

Round 2B Team B = 3 ; Team C = 4

Round 3A Team A = 2 ; Team C = 4

Round 3B – Team B = 1 ; Team D = 1

Thanks to Peggy, Susi, and Juan for the pictures!


Comments (4)

Best Friend Olympics Wii Bowling


Staff Engagement 2010 is well underway with our first challenge behind us. I am proud to announce that team Cheryl, Rachel, Susi (and, peripherally, Adam) TROUNCED  won the first ever Best Friend Olympics Wii Bowling Face Off held September 15th, 2010. And what a game it was!

With both Frances “curve ball” Negron and Viasha “slow sinker” Miadzel throwing their bowling balls at the crowd, the air was filled with fear excitement. But the real entertainment began when Andrew took center stage to show us all how to lose play. Luckily, Adam, the ringer of the group, was on hand for tutelage, though not everyone was impressed: “You can walk the walk but you can’t talk the talk, Adam.” – Andrew.  Wha?

 Here’s the scorecard (special thanks to Arlene, the official scorekeeper for the TS Olympic Games):

 Icebreaker Round

Team Final Score
Andrew, Frances 76
Cheryl, Rachel, Susi 118


Team Final Score
Kathleen, Peggy 121
Adam, Juan, Viasha 78

For the WIN!

Team Final Score
Cheryl, Rachel, Susi 135
Kathleen, Peggy 115

Cleanup Duty Goes to…

Team Final Score
Andrew, Frances 110
Adam, Juan, Viasha 151

Thanks to DOT for the delicious brownies and to  FRANCES and  ANDREW for the scrumptious Tostitos. Can’t wait for Pictionary!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Leave a Comment

Innopac Millennium Analyze Patron Searches



Innopac Millennium Web Management Reports

What is the Millennium report function called Analyze Patron Searches?  

Although this report applies more to the catalogers than to acquisitions staff,  Patron Searches is fascinating for anyone interested in what people look for when they sit down to the OPAC. The Searches report include our 3 campus libraries.

The online resources for Analyze Patron Searches are the same. Innovative Interfaces [http://www.iii.com] and a separate web site called CSDirect.  http://csdirect.iii.com/index.php.   Use of CSDirect requires a login and password which can be given to staff and must not be shared outside the department.  To keep up to date with changes CSDirect’s home page provides links for Twitter, a Blog, and a Wiki.

The main screen for Analyze Patron Searches lists these options for viewing patron searches:

Report Options on the left-hand column

Search Statistics

Indexes Used and Search Results

Terminals Used for Search

Clear Search History

View Current Searches

Limit Terminals Reported On

Reload Search History

Of the 7 report options, the following list of 4 would not be used by anyone in technical services; my opinion at the present time. My reason for this may best be explained by what each option does:

Terminals Used for Search  —  there are 6 terminals from which to select but I don’t know how this correlates with actual machines which could be serving off-campus users, in the library, etc.; this display has little value for the cataloger;

Clear Search History — Jim Hutchens has emphasized to me that I should never do this.

Limit Terminals Reported On — like “Terminals Used for Search” this display has little value for the cataloger;

Reload Search History — I don’t dare click on this!

Of some interest is the report, View Current Searches which is a real time picture of searches which updates itself continually. This option has some value for the cataloger who wants a snAnalyze Patron Searcheshot of current activity.

Let’s get on to 2 reports that have value for us, Search Statistics and Indexes Used and Search Results.  This dated display tracks searches for one month.  Search Statistics gives cumulative numbers on search activity.  The box below illustrates my point.

Management Information on Public Catalog Searches
Report on Search Activity
From Thursday September 24 03:03AM, to Friday October 23 03:00AM
Number of User Keyed Searches 113,120
Number of System Suggested Searches 2,198
Number of Records Retrieved 19,886,496
Number of Searches Limited 51
Number of Exported Records 3,136
Number of Displays Invoked 179,318


Each blue “Number of…”  is clickable to view a numerical range breakdown of the results retrieved.

The juice of Analyze Patron Searches is in selecting “Indexes Used.” The box below illustrates. 

 Management Information on Public Catalog Searches
Indexes Used and Search Results
From Thursday September 24 03:03AM, to Friday October 23 03:00AM
  Number Done  Percent Done 
RECORD NUMBERS 4,890 4.32%
KEYWORDS 9 0.01%
KEYWORDS 48,200 42.61%
KEYWORDS 1,949 1.72%
AUTHORS 7,421 6.56%
BARCODES 180 0.16%
SUBJECTS 10,269 9.08%
ISN’S 6,711 5.93%
MeSH HEADINGS 248 0.22%
SuDocs CALL NUMBERS 77 0.07%
OCLC NUMBERS 4,918 4.35%
PROF/TA 23 0.02%
COURSES 27 0.02%
TITLES 19,260 17.03%
Other 2,165 1.91%
TOTAL 113,120 100.00%


Again, each blue “Index name…” is clickable to view a numerical  range breakdown of the results retrieved.

I chose the Subject Index for these results: In the lower box, Display Actual Searches Input by User, we can extract a month long picture, often running more than 250 screens, of entry by entry ……….

Search Results for User Keyed Searches – SUBJECTS
From Wednesday September 23 03:02AM, to Thursday October 22 03:00AM
  Number Done Percent Done
Searches Retrieving 1 Record 7,051 68.81%
Searches Retrieving 2 to 8 Records 474 4.63%
Searches Retrieving 9 to 30 Records 351 3.43%
Searches Retrieving 31 to 99 Records 362 3.53%
Searches Retrieving 100 to 499 Records 437 4.26%
Searches Retrieving 500 to 4999 Records 309 3.02%
Searches Retrieving 5000 or More Records 36 0.35%
Total Searches Retrieving Records 9,020 88.03%
Total Records Retrieved/Average per Search 1,056,478 117
Searches With No Retrievals 1,227 11.97%
Total Searches 10,247 100.00%

Display Actual Searches Input by User
Alphabetical Order
In Order by Popularity
Limited to Searches with No Direct Hits

The box within the box gives the cataloger information of great value; we will find out the successes as well as the failures of real searches. Knowing this, we have the option to create additional cross-references. We can best prepare such cross-references by consultation with public services personnel as well as other catalogers.  A guide of hints for successful searching, especially the difference between using a keyword or a Library of Congress subject search, would also be a useful by product of Analyze Patron Searches.

        Please ask me any question you might have about this topic, as I am still learning, I would welcome the opportunity to answer you.

The End.

Comments (1)

Town Hall Meeting Ponders Carmakers’ Future

As most of you probably know, the new CEO of General Motors, Fritz Henderson, was here last Thursday morning for a “Town Hall Meeting” (the biz school’s second such event) on the future of the auto industry. He was joined by local car-meister Mike Jackson, the CEO of AutoNation. I didn’t see many fellow TS-ers there, so I thought I’d give an overview for those of you who might be interested.

The first half of the program gave each of the speakers a chance to comment on all things auto. Mike Jackson went first, choosing to focus on the recent economic meltdown and how it brought about the auto industry bailout. He blames the housing crisis for much of the carmakers’ woes. First, he says, people who were getting too-easy credit on new homes expected the same on new cars. And while most car dealers resisted these demands, that pressure drove the industry to offer incentives on new cars that left them with very little profit. Then, when all the foreclosures began, people stopped buying cars. (The last thing someone losing her home thinks of is buying a new car, eh?) Flat sales and no profit proved a bad combination, and it all came to a head in the early fall of 2008. And though he said it was difficult for an admitted free-market Republican like himself to say so, Jackson thinks the government was right in stepping in. He thinks we’ve hit bottom, though, and believes car sales will continue to grow for at least the next 7 years—slow at first, then speeding up. He sees GM, under new CEO Henderson, as being a big part of that recovery.

Henderson, installed as CEO just 6 months ago, spent his time mostly pitching the new GM: its new cars, its new culture, and its new global perspective. He said he’s committed to increased fuel efficiency but cautioned that it makes more sense to improve the mileage of all GM’s gas-burning cars  rather than try to come up with one model to compete with ultra-efficient cars like Toyota’s hybrid Prius. (That sounded like a cop-out to me.) He also said that the company is leaner and meaner than before, the result of dumping many product lines and extraneous infrastructure. And he’s excited about the strategy of designing cars with the entire world in mind—rather than trying to retrofit American models to suit other countries’ roads, tastes, and environmental regulations. He finished by showing us four 15-second car commercials, the point of which I didn’t get. Just seemed to me like a chance to pitch his products to a captive audience.

A question-and-answer session followed. The first question had to do with Chevrolet’s upcoming electric car, the Volt. Henderson played down the issues of its high price ($40K!!) and low performance (less than 50 miles on a charge), framing the issue more as this being just the first step in a bright future of GM electric cars. He used the opportunity to repeat his commitment to higher mileage for conventional cars, saying that he saw that strategy as having more of an effect on overall gas savings. A related question asked whether people’s concern about fuel efficiency is tied to gas prices, which Jackson vigorously defended. It’s a sad commentary, but he said that if gas is cheap, car buyers would rather have useless, flashy features than a car with better mileage. As he pointed out, buying a car is an emotional decision.

I didn’t stay for much more, because the questions became increasingly business-oriented and I just couldn’t cut through all the buzzwords. But I sat next to a teacher from the biz school, and she seemed pleased by what she heard.

These town meetings have their drawbacks—e.g., your ability to ask “hard” questions is ameliorated by the fact that (a) you have to write them down for someone to pass on and possibly edit or “lose,” and (b) there is no chance to follow-up—but I’m glad Nova has them. It’s good PR for the school and fun to see these guys in action. And it has been guys exclusively through these first two town hall meetings. It’d be nice to see some women up there for a change. Can you do something about that, Ish?

If you were there and saw things differently, let us know. That’s what blogs are about!


Comments (3)

Palm Beach County, Hagen Ranch Branch

Comments (2)

Older Posts »