Stacey van Groll
My feedback
198 results found
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
135 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
35 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I think that this idea has strong similarity (but some differences) to my own idea targeted for CDI facet restrictions:
https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/42521581-remove-restriction-on-number-of-primo-facets-value -
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Ex Libris have previously declined this concept, with reasoning here: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/37969432-portfolio-link-checker
-
43 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This is a parity issue with VE only having the Zero Results message and not the broad range of informative feedback messages which are in Primo using Back Office.
Although it does sound like there is worse behaviour on VE in not showing any results at all, because BO will still display some local results typically.
It could also be that the results do vary further for other messages for BO, and perhaps they aren't all relevant for VE, given the lucene vs solr aspect.
But definitely there are some instances like for this submission where there are definitely limits in place for VE and yet it has no messages to advise patrons.
See the "Partial results found." message on this page to meet this example: https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Product_Documentation/Primo/End_User_Help_-_New_UI/Feedback_Messages
-
35 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
57 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
141 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I think this is a limitation by sheer performance load. With the current situation, the data is quantifiable (and yet Primo VE is still so much slower than Primo on BO). There would logically be a greatly more significant system demand if sites were allowed to control their own search and facet data, adjusting the indexing dramatically. I suppose this is the price of the 'real time indexing'. I'd love to be proven wrong.
Stacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Hi Kathleen,
This is a defect, rather than an enhancement, per OLH that 1 million rows is supported.
It was meant to be fixed in June per my case:
"June 2022 Analytics SF: 06047995
The number of rows that were possible to export in formatted Excel format was limited. This was expanded to 1,000,000 rows."I reported back to my case after the release that the behaviour remained the same. It was checked and advised that the application found to be incomplete.
The fix is now scheduled again for August.
-
67 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This would of course be a nice feature for Primo sites overall, not just those on VE as per the tagged category.
I've added a lateral link by local field into main Primo for all records in Collection Discovery, mapped to a local 'Collection' facet to meet this need for a good connection point into main Primo, in returning all results in the collection.
But it requires for a user to open a record and find the lateral link, whereas this is a very nice idea to add a button which would be much more visible.
-
1 voteStacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
105 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I raised this with Ex Libris Senior Management in August 2020, after being told in a case response that I should have reported to the appropriate team, rather than using the 'Report to Ex Libris' function: "We would like to recommend reporting similar issues to CDI Support team in the future - according to the product where the issue is replicated."
I used the 'Report to Ex Libris' function because I had directly correlated an issue in a CDI record in Primo from a specific Alma Electronic Collection, and all through the CDI rollout it was marketed to customers clearly and repeatedly that a significant component of the reasoning for the move of index management into Alma was for the benefit of integrated platform functionality.
Why should we have to log into the separate SalesForce platform and go through the many dropdown arrows to submit a new case, and copy and paste a great deal of information such as record IDs, when we can directly identify a particular portfolio or collection as the root cause of an issue?
When reporting via Alma, we have none of these pain points, all of the record information is included in the case automatically on our behalf and we have only to add some simple information such as example permalinks and issue description.
What we have is an attempt at an integrated system of products, trying to match with SalesForce support teams that are rigidly segregated by product.My response was: "… it is a completely acceptable workflow for us to submit cases within Alma via 'Report to Ex Libris', when we can identify a direct correlation with the CDI collection within Alma." and "… if it is desired for us to try to determine if the issue is Alma data or CDI data, then it would be up to Ex Libris to add another dropdown option to the 'Report to Ex Libris' page, as we would be more than happy to choose CDI or Alma."
But here we are now, almost two years later in June 2022 at time of writing, and this aspect of "CDI via Alma" integration still has no sign of being in place in Alma.
Stacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
7 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Hi Nikki - Yes, I didn't specify VE or BO, because it's an issue for Primo as a product and is not specific to a deployment model.
Stacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
22 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
The display is by ISBN/ISSN/LCCN according to OLH (some of the pages don't mention LCCN, while others do).
In such cases where the image is wrong in Alma, perhaps check to see if the identifier is correct in the bibliographic record?
-
0 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Hi Ana - Apologies if I'm not misinterpreting the full scenario, but shouldn't this be covered by the Interested In Letter, triggered if you have selected to "Notify upon cancelation"?
Notify upon cancelation - When selected, Alma sends an email to the user when the order is canceled. An email is sent only if this is selected and an email address is configured for the user. This option is clear by default. To control whether it is selected or not, use the po_ line_notify_interested_users_upon_cancelation customer parameter (Configuration Menu > Acquisitions > General > Other Settings).
-
48 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
There is an earlier Idea Exchange submission which is marked as Completed (417 votes).
It has caused this new submission to be needed because it was done only with this artificial limit of 10:
https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/35043796-summary-holdings-display-primo-ve -
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
What a poor first experience for you!
I haven't used it yet myself, and I'm a bit shocked it would create a blank case when an analyst hasn't even engaged. -
50 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I agree with Manu that this is a defect if Primo is not making the data meaningful for UI.
The normalisation rules should adjust for this, in adjusting the date to cover the range.
For example, if you check the PNX of a record with 199-, it can be seen to be adjusted to 1990 for sort and search, while it will display as 199- per the source record permitted cataloguing.
As another example with 260 ##$a[Vancouver :$bDuthie Books,$c199-?-1994], the range will be <startdate>19900101</startdate> <enddate>19941231</enddate> -
84 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
If this was developed, please allow for a configuration option to choose which reports to send or not send if empty, as sometimes it is the purpose of the report.
This could be by the Analytics Object, such as a checkbox during configuration in Alma, to check the box to not send if empty. -
267 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I'm not an expert in authorities nor music works, but I think many of these UI problems are only in Primo VE, and not Primo (managed via Back Office)
* Record counts: Primo VE presents "20+ records", where Primo display the accurate record count eg 560 records (bar minor FRBR/Dedup variations)
* Records returned: Primo VE returns hits outside the author heading such as 600, where Primo presents from the author heading, in an author Browse Search, which I believe covers the left-anchored aspect also
* References: I'm not seeing any sign that Primo VE supports See or See Also references in Browse Search. Primo supports See but not See Also references in Browse Search
* Fields: I won't try to dive into all the subfields mentioned, but Primo sites have the ability to adjust the Browse rules as they see fit, such as if there is a subfield which they'd like to add to Browse Search
Harvard has a lovely Browse Search on Primo via Back Office, labelled in main menu as 'Starts with / Browse': https://hollis.harvard.edu/primo-explore/browse?vid=HVD2&browseQuery=bizet,%20georges&browseScope=author&innerPnxIndex=-1&numOfUsedTerms=-1&fn=BrowseSearch
Could you advise an example or if this is in a specific area?
I went to check it and the Details display is as expected with double dash eg alma991000002559707081 with
Germany -- Economic conditions
Germany -- Politics and government -- 1789-1900