O.K.  So I have a problem with the way bound serial holdings runs are often displayed.  Here is an example:

Library has: v.30:no.2 (1994:Jan.),v.30:no.4 (1994:Mar.)-v.30:no.7 (1994:June),v.30:no.9 (1994:Sept.)-v.33:no.2 (1997:Feb.),v.33:no.4 (1997:Apr.)-v.38 (2002),v.39:no.8 (2003:Sept.)-v.41:no.1 (2005:Jan.),v.41:no.3 (2005:Mar.)-v.44 (2007) [Bound volumes]

What normal patron is going to be able to read through all that to figure out what we have?  Even my eyes glaze over trying to figure it out.

I'm thinking about moving toward a simplified display by leaving out the months to help it scan better and separating out the missing issues in a separate line:

Library has: v. 30, no. 2 (1994) – v. 44 (2007) [Bound volumes]
Missing issues: 30:3(1994), 30:8(1994), 33:3(1997), 39:1-7(2003), 41:2(2005)

Any thoughts?  How does your library approach this issue?

~Kelly

Kelly A. Smith
Electronic Resources Collection Librarian
kelly.smith2@eku.edu