JMC
My feedback
28 results found
-
56 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
shared this idea
·
-
47 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
I concur, but for the opposite reason. Normally, we do NOT want to recall, but rather want to be able to hold the item for an interested patron at whatever point the item is returned and to prevent a RENEWAL. Basically, there is a difference between a hold and a recall, and we need both.
-
140 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
See also "Add the ability to set individual user preferences or defaults when creating item records."
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
Would it be possible for there to be multiple "default" options, and the acquisitions operator can select whichever is appropriate? This would allow for more specificity in the holdings record created as part of ordering, because fixed fields could be coded properly for monographs (2=Received and complete or 3=On Order) vs serials (3 or 4=Currently received) and for additional media-specific fields to be included (again, using serials as an example, addition of 852/863/866).
-
205 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
I support any improved utilization of the detailed and useful information in LC authority records.
JMC
supported this idea
·
-
124 votes
Dear all,
As part of the new UX of the All Titles search, it will be possible to view the bibliographic record in the details pane of the record (on the right side of the screen or in full view), and navigate between the records in the search using up/down arrow buttons as well as by selecting another record in the search list (on the left side or the screen).
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
Yes, please! Will vote up once I have some free votes to spare.
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
See also "'Add next and previous arrows to detail display" in the PRIMO idea exchange
-
199 votesJMC
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
I had such high hopes for improvement on this in the new UI. Just spent 2 HOURS getting one new rule moved into the right place so as to function properly. I gave up on the other 2 rules I should have created.
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
I find it unacceptable that this screen/process is so poorly designed. First, new templates insert at either the top or bottom of the list. Second, their position in the list is ESSENTIAL to proper functioning. Third, they can only be moved one place at a time. Forth, after each movement, the page scroll returns you to the top of the list, rather than retaining a position with the selected row near the top or center.
In order to save myself scrolling back to the bottom each time, I shrink the on-screen font to fit the entire page. At 160 templates, and with my 22" screen flipped vertically, it is shrunk so small that I can barely see the arrows and can pretty much only use the length of the "Rule name" field to know which template I need to move. I've taken to using a handheld magnifier to assist me in this process. Yet, with all these tricks to streamline this arduous task, my latest set of eight rules required an additional 13-15 minutes of my time JUST TO MOVE THEM INTO THE PROPER SORT ORDER. And they only needed to move about 18 positions. I haven't even calculated the enormous wasted time for a new rule that needs to be inserted mid-list.
PLEASE FIX THIS!
JMC
shared this idea
·
-
58 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
I wholehearted support this idea, despite having no votes to give at the moment. ALL fields should be indexed.
-
396 votesJMC
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
Oh, yes please!! This would be tremendously useful!
-
60 votesJMC
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
I also believe this is the behavior the user expects when entering a comment.
-
107 votes
Hello,
Unfortunately there are some delays with producing the file.
It is no longer planned, and I apologize for misleading the community with giving a timeline.
I will update the idea once i have more information.
Thanks,
Tamar
JMC
supported this idea
·
-
118 votesJMC
supported this idea
·
-
42 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
Great suggestion, but unfortunately, labeling is problematic, since MARC21 prescribes different information for the various ENUM/CHRON fields, depending upon what information, in total, is present on the item. So, although Primo forces us to always use CHRON I for the year if we want the dates to match up with the labels on the holdings filter drop-downs, according to MARC21, a year on a serial which does not use enumeration should actually go in the ENUM A field.
I also like the suggestion of drop downs, but in this case, it is likewise impractical, since there is so much variability in what can/should go in any one field.
-
512 votes
We are investigating the options for enhancing the job reports as part of a general enhancement to the jobs UX, which will then allow gradually deploying report enhancements to the different jobs in Alma.
JMC
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
Yes, please. The "bug fix" implemented last week does not truly fix this, just obfuscates the problem by simply not reporting back duplicate or blank records.
Background:
We filed a case (#00180926) to get the details about the failed items (per the message in the report to contact Support using the process ID for more information) on an "Add Members to Set" job. We were told it was a bug planned to be fixed by Q3 of 2016.
On 11/30/16 we received the following update from Ex Libris: "It seems that the issue was with the reporting, and these records did not actually fail. In the report of the Add Member to Set job, the count included duplicate and empty values. This was fixed, and now duplicate and empty values are skipped and won't appear, both in the report and in the count."
We did reply with a request that the duplicate and blank records be counted and reported as such, rather than ignored or reported as failed records. Ex Libris responded very quickly, but explained that as this would require a redesign of the job, it needs to go through the enhancement process and/or the idea exchange.
SO ...
I agree that more useful details would be fabulous.
For most jobs, we compare gross numbers as a first check to make sure everything ran as expected. If the new reports now discount duplicate and empty lines, the gross numbers may not match and much time will be spent trying to figure out why Alma thinks the file had "x" number of records, when the file clearly has "y".
Similarly, when importing electronic records and creating portfolios, it is vital to know if there were duplicate records in the file which had gone unnoticed. And in files of sometimes tens of thousands of records, those things can be easy to miss. Sometimes they are true duplicates, but sometimes they are different volumes, parts, or segments of a resource which are each put by the vendor on a separate copy of the bib record, with the volume/part/segment specific URL in a single 856 (rather than a single bib with multiple 856s). If the duplicates didn't load, we need to be certain the portfolios attached properly and, if not, add additional portfolios for the additional URLs. Again, having the report spell out that there were duplicate records is more helpful than simply stating there were failed records, and far more helpful than just removing the duplicate records from the total count of records handled.
-
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 JMC
commented
THANK YOU!!! So glad to see this in the "Planned" column.
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
And YES, what good is a list of electronic portfolios without the URLs??? And these we can't even get at from Analytics, either. Absolutely insane.
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
First, not all staff have access to Analytics. Some can view, but not create. There are plenty of "quick lists" needed in day-to-day work where it would be nice to be able to use the export to excel option to get the information on the spot, rather than needing to request someone with additional permissions write a report for you.
One example is when working with the Task List. I would like to be able to export a list of items on the Task List and include the text of the "Notes" field, which currently is not included in the "all fields" option. As someone previously noted, in almost ALL cases, I would want to include permanent call number on any list being exported. In this example, The list would be given to find items hanging in the task list to determine if the requested work was completed and either clear the old work order/status or retrieve the item to do the requested work. Currently, we need to either look up each call number and add it to the exported spreadsheet or use the task list add individual items to a set and export to excel from there. Either way, the note from the Task List still does not export, so we have to go back to the Task List to view and or copy down that information.
-
91 votesJMC
supported this idea
·
-
17 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
This would be particularly useful for things such as kits, realia, musical recordings, etc., where it is common for there to be no ISBN.
-
227 votes
Dear all, we are currently looking into the possibility of a re-design of the quick cataloging functionality - we will take this request into consideration as part of this future change.
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
This seems very useful.
-
48 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
Yes, please!
-
88 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
I agree.
-
20 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
Yes, yes, yes!
To clarify, the most specific thing I am looking for is two additions on the "Scan In Items" page. The first is a "Use/Scan from Set" option, which would then present the user with the list of eligible sets, like happens when running a change holdings job, for instance. The second would be an "Upload/Scan from File" option, which would then prompt you to browse to a .txt or .csv file, as is done for import jobs.
The efficiency I am seeking is in getting items moved along in a workflow or pushed through to/from transit and other statuses to "Item in Place"