Simon Read
My feedback
40 results found
-
313 votes
We’re looking at adding an indication in the Manage In Process Items next to a request where there are more digitization requests for the same item in the queue. A row action will allow the staff to complete the current active request and activate the next.
Simon Read
supported this idea
·
-
63 votesSimon Read
supported this idea
·
-
20 votesSimon Read
supported this idea
·
-
13 votesSimon Read
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment -
70 votesSimon Read
supported this idea
·
-
42 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Simon Read
commented
Hi Dana,
Thanks for the update. I've tested the hourly booking functionality and as far as I can see the end date and time does not automatically populate the request form in either Alma or Primo. I can't find specific mention of the auto population in the release notes either - just mention of the ability to change to hourly bookings rather than bookings by minute. How are we meant to activate the functionality?
Simon Read
shared this idea
·
-
41 votesSimon Read
shared this idea
·
-
162 votesSimon Read
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Simon Read
commented
We're in a similar position where we wish to enable specific locations in a Library to be able to be picked up at a Library (or libraries) that we define but the current rules just aren't granular enough for us to be able to do that. We've looked at the relationship rules but they define what happens at the Library rather than location level.
Like Aya we'd like to have another pickup location rule added in the TOU that would allow us to specific which libraries could be selected for pickup
-
36 votesSimon Read
supported this idea
·
-
44 votesSimon Read
supported this idea
·
-
105 votesSimon Read
shared this idea
·
-
118 votesSimon Read
supported this idea
·
-
54 votesSimon Read
shared this idea
·
-
54 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Simon Read
commented
Thanks Moshe,
We have logged a couple of cases in the past (167336 and 57810). For 57810 we got told to use scan in items and if we wanted it to work for return items that we should submit an enhancement/ideas exchange hence this post. Subsequently that decision has been reversed and some additional development has been committed to.
We hate having to say to staff they should use scan in items for some things and return items for others so we say to staff they should scan an item through return items to determine next steps. This almost always works but there have been a couple of exceptions in the past.
Any other voters for this request like to add an area where return items doesn't fill your needs and you have to use scan in items instead?
Simon
An error occurred while saving the comment Simon Read
commented
An example of where this causes us problems is with the return of on loan items that have a Home Delivery request on them.
All loans are processed through Return Items to determine next steps - in the case of an item with a Home Delivery Request no Home Delivery slip prints. If, however, the item is scanned in via Scan in Items the Home Delivery slip is printed - this is counter intuitive as staff don't know which items have Home Delivery requests on them so they don't know they should scan them in via Scan in Items. It is very confusing for staff.
Simon Read
shared this idea
·
-
47 votesSimon Read
shared this idea
·
-
53 votes
After reviewing this idea, Alma Product Management has decided to update our development plans to include this suggested change. Thank you for your contribution
An error occurred while saving the comment Simon Read
commented
Including the MMS ID would be very useful - this would allow us to export from Alma, the give the spreadsheet to someone to further work on (remove rows etc.) then re-import into another set in Alma. Adding the MMS ID would also allow sending a file of MMS IDs to Analytics for further processing.
Other fields we'd find useful are ISBN/ISSN, URL and Available for Group information. The reality is it's difficult to state what's required - we tend to have a particular need to do an export and then find the fields that were exported weren't quite what we were hoping for and then have to find other ways to achieve what we want. It's difficult now to think of what those fields were that we missed and what we were trying to do with them.
I think it's fair to say that most of our need is to export records for further work outside of the system (e.g. a list of items to take to the stacks for weeding/put a list of titles together that are available at a particular campus) and we want the flexibility to be able to put fields on the export that are most useful for the task being undertaken. It'd certainly also be useful to have individual field showing in each column rather than concatenated into a single one (e.g. publication details and location/call number holdings all concatenated into a single field on a physical titles export).
An error occurred while saving the comment Simon Read
commented
You can do some things with Analytics but the URL field isn't available there either. Ideally you should be able to export the data you need from either environment - Alma is easier to use for most people and not everyone has access to Analytics or the expertise to use it
-
14 votesSimon Read
shared this idea
·
-
96 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Simon Read
commented
Currently the patron purge functionality works based on the purge date.
It would be nice if there was an option to choose to use the expiry date rather than the purge date - we find that staff often forget to change the purge date when they extend the expiry date for patrons so using the expiry date would be more reliable.
Simon Read
supported this idea
·
-
37 votes
It will be possible to pay from the user Fines and Fees tab,. This will be possible if there is a ‘Currently At’ desk that allows payment.
It will be possible to either pay a line or a balance.
This will enable payment and waiving to be done easily from the same UI.
Thank you for this great idea !
Simon Read
supported this idea
·
-
93 votesSimon Read
supported this idea
·
I support this idea. In addition to automatically correcting common spelling errors and typos Primo should enable the user to switch back to their original search terms if those were the terms they intended to use. Exactly the same as Google uses:
Searched for: trcks
Showing results for trucks
Search instead for trcks
This gives the user the ability to back out of auto corrections they didn't want to happen