Stacey van Groll
My feedback
197 results found
-
9 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
62 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I asked about this in a case and was advised that the VE files are examples only and all Primo customers (VE and BO) must open a case to request updated files. This is now indicated in the VE documentation with: "Since this information is updated per customer requests, please contact support to get an updated list for your institution.".
Presumably, if you were considering moving from BO to VE and wanted to compare the files as part of your transition project, you could ask for both files in the case and to be advised if they were at parity.
The last file I asked for and received for our BO site included the ranking eg Very High, Very Low etc. -
167 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
The set of 3 ideas which would drastically improve irrelevant and meaningless CDI results, by restoring and adding search tools which empower our users to target their search and their results, and and fixing the design decisions which make these tools very necessary:
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This feature is even more important with CDI.
I have complaints because users are getting results returned on the basis of one of their terms being only in the reference list in a URL of a citation.
In sum, completely irrelevant to their query, as nowhere else in the record metadata or the true full text of the work.
If you could force Primo (actually CDI) to only return results for your search terms when in close proximity, this would drastically improve this currently very poor situation.An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I've submitted this for Primo NERS 2020.
Title: Add a proximity search operator
Request ID: 6682
Description: A proximity operator allows a researcher to specify that their search terms are present in records within a specified number of words from each other.
Summon already incorporates this feature, performed by enclosing search terms in quotation marks and using tilde and the number distance, for example "yeast bread"~10 finds material where "yeast" and "bread" appear within 10 words of each other.
See https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Summon/Product_Documentation/Searching_in_The_Summon_Service/Search_Features/Summon%3A_Boolean%2C_Phrase%2C_Wildcard_and_Proximity_Searching#proximity
Primo’s search algorithm incorporates an out-of-the-box assignment of higher ranking to records where search terms are closer together, but a proximity search operator gives a researcher explicitly more control over precise targeting of their search, which would also help to build greater understanding and confidence that the results will meet their needs and aren’t just from a mysterious “black box”.
With CDI coming soon to Primo, along with the massive increase in records, this trust building will be even more important to support researchers with tools to help sift through billions of results.
This tool should primarily support PNX and equivalent record metadata (both Primo via Back Office and Primo VE deployment models), but ideally would also incorporate standard existing extensions to remote data where available, including table of contents, abstracts, and full text.
See Idea Exchange submission: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/19308214-proximity-search-operator-for-fulltext-search-in-pStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I would love to see this in Primo, for full text and for record metadata, which are both available in Summon.
Our site was on Summon when I was studying myself and I constantly used this functionality for my research and assignments, as a key strategy to improve ranking of results for several keywords.
It is a vital tool for topic searches for beginner and more advanced researchers alike, to help sift through the hundreds of millions of results, by improved targeting of results and moving them into prominent position. -
317 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
The set of 3 ideas which would drastically improve irrelevant and meaningless CDI results, by restoring and adding search tools which empower our users to target their search and their results, and and fixing the design decisions which make these tools very necessary:
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Some user-focused reasons to vote:
* Do you get queries from confused users who have searched in specific fields like Subject, Title, and Author, and then get results that have no sign of their search terms in those fields?
* Do your users wonder why they don’t see features like lateral links to find more records in these results, and don’t get the expected data they searched also exported to EndNote?Stacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
27 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
There is still a preferred record display by cascade of preference by delivery category in Primo managed via Back Office. This will result in failure to display the fields from the non-preferred records when the field is duplicated, for example if the two records have a description field, then only the description from the preferred record displays.
It seems the difference with Primo VE is the dynamic nature of the deduplication, in this 'first record in the result list' aspect, as VE deduplicates at the point of search rather than the point of index, and therefore preferences to match the user query as primary.
I'd still really love to see an example of this variation in action, if you feel willing to provide one.An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Hi Floriane - can you provide an example, as I'm not sure what you mean for VE?
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This is standard configuration. Can you not see this in your site?
I'll attach a screenshot from a VE site. -
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Could more detail be provided? If you don't want to show a resource recommender entry, why not just remove it from the configuration?
-
82 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This should not be limited to Primo VE, but recorded for all Primo customers.
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I can't replicate this and I believe therefore it is a bug to be reported in SalesForce, rather than an enhancement. There have also been issues with this is the past, fixed in prior releases, lending to my thought of this being a defect even more.
-
21 votesStacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
18 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Hi Moshe,
I don't think such workflows for rejected requests are unknown to Ex Libris. It's necessary for monitoring, tracking, and resolving requests in a variety of scenarios, such as those which were cancelled while In Transit. This then hinders other workflows such as deleting a Library. Alma should not just 'disappear' a request as if it never existed, and we need visibility of all requests in Alma. This should already be the case under the 'All' filter selection, which is a defect. But it would also be helpful as this submission suggests to specifically add also a 'Rejected' filter. I am well aware from a case open for years that this filter was about to be released, and was even in Release Notes for May 2021, and then was pulled last minute.Stacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I'm curious as to why they're bothering to go to Browse Search when they're already browsing? Why do they feel they have to perform the search again when they're in a results list by that term and can adjust the Advanced Search query or use the nested facets? Browse Search will actually limit their results, in only including local records when the lateral link shown in your screencast includes remote CDI records as well which match the term.
-
103 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I suggest to merge and rename to CDI this submission: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/43803426-customize-cdi-activations-by-resource-types
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Recommend to merge with existing submission: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/43465527-display-pagination-navigation-on-top-of-resultpage
-
129 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
It is really unfortunate that the new pagination option to display up to 50 results by user selection in May 2021 was not included in Collection Discovery, which keeps the same Load More Results.
This also adds a design inconsistency across Primo interfaces.
The design is that it will only apply to Collection Discovery if a user sets this already for the session in main Primo and then happens to navigate into Collection Discovery.
As it is a very common user pathway to provide direct links to specific collections, such as promoting content in a web page by direct link to a collection, this means that a user is guaranteed to bypass main Primo and then miss out on the opportunity to set an increase in page numbers. -
76 votes
Dear Colleagues,
we expect to have this development ready for you by the end of 2024.
All the best,
Shoshana
Stacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
19 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
52 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Doesn't that CSS code just hide the suggestion, Manuela? The DYM index is taking effect on the results in Primo VE, right? So the results would still be highlighted as 'light', using the original example.
I often think that the downfall of this feature is what seems to be the unnecessary complexity, so it is almost impossible to explain.
For example, if I test this on one of my local data sources with Hmong consumers, I get two results with among and consumers highlighted. If I choose the suggestion for 'among consumers', then I get 19 results, some of which have among and consumers also clearly in the data, including the title. But the key is that the two which showed up originally have apparently been triggered by the Levenshtein distance aspect of the distance between the two words (it's not documented what that is specifically that I can find), whereas in the other records the words among and consumer are further apart.
Try explaining that to a user!
And there's also the issue that only the local index is used to build the index from title and authors, which drastically reduces the value because it's missing out on more unique and newer terms that might only be in emerging research topics which only have articles thus far in CDI, which are actually more likely for users to misspell and need help with. -
18 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Hi Manu - it should just be 'User interface' category, as this is not specific to VE model but for Primo as a product.
I have just had one of our staff ask after this, as it is very unnecessarily time-consuming to have to click in and out of the email address entries repeatedly just to see the key field of Description.
I completely agree with the submission in not wanting to create user accounts for this to try to solve what seems to be a very simple fix to add the option to the cog icon display to allow users to display the Description if they want to.