We do a couple of things differently, to wit:

1)  We separate volumes & dates thusly:  v. 30, no. 2 - v. 44 (JAN 1994-DEC 2007)

2)  If we're missing an issue or two, that doesn't show up in the holdings line,  as your later suggestion.  Instead of "missing issues", we use a LIBRARY LACKS 899 field.  So if we had a several volume break we would show:  v. 22 - v. 28 and then v. 30, no. 2 - v. 44, we wouldn't have all the breaks you do.  We would also show it on two lines, ie

v. 22 - v. 28 (1986-1992)
v. 30, no. 2 - v. 44 (JAN 1994-2007)
LIBRARY LACKS:
v. 30, no. 3 (Feb. 1994)  MISSING
v. 30, no. 8 (Oct. 1994) NOT RECEIVED
etc.

We chose the differentiation for internal reasons; we know not to even bother looking for something that never arrived.

We do also show current checkins; those each display on their own line until collapsed, at which time I edit the holdings record to display as above.

Jeanette L. Skwor
Cofrin Library, Serials Dept.
UW-Green Bay
2420 Nicolet Drive
Green Bay, WI 54311

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Smith2, Kelly
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 8:54 AM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: [SERIALST] Readability of serials displays

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