Debbie Campbell
My feedback
21 results found
-
23 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
Yes please! We would like the behavior to be consistent between local and AFN items. It causes confusion and inconvenience for our libraries' patrons and library staff when the behavior is inconsistent.
Ex Libris explained to us in a ExL support ticket that:
--For the most part, when working with a Fulfillment Network all notifications are sent from the Item owner, not the patron's home institution. So even though your proxy and sponsor are from your home institution, the notifications being generated are all coming from the 'lenders,' which are the other AFN institutions.
--In this AFN situation, the fulfillment proxy user is placing the request, as you described. But, when it comes time to create the AFN request, it only gets associated with the sponsor user (as there is no field in the Borrowing Request menu to allow for the fulfillment proxy information). And by design, linked accounts cannot be created for fulfillment proxy users, so we have to rely on the information for the sponsor user. So when the request is sent to the lender/item owner, only the sponsor's information is shared and available.
--Because the item owner sends the notification, and only the sponsor's information is sent to the item owner, they are the only one to receive the notification. This is why it differs from local requests - when everything is local, all of the information is available for both parties, so a notification gets sent to both.So in order to have this behavior modified for consistency for our staff and patrons, it'll need to come through Idea Exchange voting.
-
58 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
This remains a VERY IMPORTANT enhancement for me. Commenting to reiterate my support.
Debbie Campbell
shared this idea
·
-
27 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
Commenting to reiterate my support for this enhancement.
Debbie Campbell
shared this idea
·
-
81 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
Commenting to reiterate my support for this enhancement.
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
Yes, please add the item details to the course reserves area in Alma Analytics. Having that information would make it easier to run Alma jobs based off of sets, it would make it possible to do an inventory of physical items that should be on the reserves shelves/in the reserves area, as well as assist with usage statistics.
Debbie Campbell
supported this idea
·
-
103 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
I see this is included in the 2025 Roadmap as "Real-Time Update of Linked Accounts" https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Product_Materials/010Roadmap/Alma_Roadmap_Highlights_(2024-2025)/Collaborative_Networks#Real-Time_Update_of_Linked_Accounts
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
Yes, it would be so helpful if this functionality were built directly into Alma.
1) refresh on renewal attempt by patron or by library staff
2) a job that can call home to the linked user's home record and refresh the copy saved to the item's IZ.Debbie Campbell
supported this idea
·
-
73 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
We still regularly get questions from our member libraries about how staff can assist patrons in renewing material the patron has borrowed from another AFN member institution.
Debbie Campbell
supported this idea
·
-
419 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
This remains important to the libraries in our consortium. Thanks!
Debbie Campbell
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
Yes please. Many of our institutions have materials cataloged that they want to display in their IZ for their local patrons to know are available, but, they do not necessarily want to have the records show in the NZ for all of the consortia's members to locate on a search.
Common examples include materials such as headphones, dry erase markers, professor's copies of reserve materials, and certain kits or equipment.
-
26 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
This ticket should still be merged with the one linked below.
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
Yes, please merge this with https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/19460731-text. Thanks!
-
193 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
This ticket is still of interest to our member libraries.
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
Patrons of the libraries in our consortium frequently used this functionality in our prior OPAC. They would use it if it were available in Primo VE as well.
(I would use it too.)
Debbie Campbell
supported this idea
·
-
304 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
A library asked me about Course Reserve browse just this week, and I pointed them to this Idea Exchange. This functionality would still be appreciated.
Debbie Campbell
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
I would appreciate this enhancement for Primo VE.
It is much easier for patrons to browse the list of available courses/instructors to review a reserve list than to remember the correct words in order to search. -
50 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
With this option on the future 2024 Roadmap, wondering if there are any updates from Ex Libris?
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
ExL has added "Blocks Across a Network" to the 2024 Roadmap.
https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Product_Materials/010Roadmap/Alma_Roadmap_Highlights_(2023-2024)/Consortia#Blocks_Across_a_NetworkThe proposal is brief, and does not appear to aggregate blocks for a total across the consortium. It does not contain a description of how quickly the blocks are applied/removed as they're passed from "source" to "target" institutions.
--What's New: Fulfillment Network members will be able to share local blocks with the entire network.
--Highlights: Blocks will be copied not only from the source institution but also from the target institutions.
--Impact: Libraries will be able to better consolidate their fulfillment services across the network.An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
Hi! Adding in the wording we've condensed/written up for the 2022 NERS voting cycle as an additional comment to this Idea Exchange topic.
It should be possible to automatically block (and then automatically unblock ) users based on the combined total of their delinquent activity at all institutions in an Automated Fulfillment Network.
Currently, a user can only be blocked from further activity at all institutions in the fulfillment network when the user’s home institution manually applies a network block to the user’s account. This staff-applied network block must also then be monitored and manually removed; this requires extra work on the part of staff and may cause unnecessary delays for users who correct their delinquent behavior but then must also wait for staff to remove the block.
We would like “fulfillment network aggregate block thresholds” to apply blocks based on a network-level limit of current overdue items, overdue recalled items, lost items, and fines/fees. For example, if a user from Institution A has five overdue items at Institution B and five overdue items at Institution C and the Fulfillment Network’s “Maximum Overdue Items” is set to ten, then the user is blocked from any additional Fulfillment Network transactions at all Fulfillment Network institutions until the aggregate count is back below the network limit.
Once below the limit, the block should be automatically removed. We had this functionality in Ex Libris Voyager Universal Borrowing, and our consortial resource sharing agreements and workflows expected such aggregate thresholds.
Debbie Campbell
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
Yes, I agree, this functionality would be very valuable for consortia using Alma, especially Alma's AFN functionality.
Voyager (the system we are migrating from), had "Universal Policy Definitions" in which we could determine cumulative totals of delinquency a patron could assess across the consortium, before they were blocked from further circulation activity.
For example, we could set it so that a the patron could have no more than 3 lost items total from any/all of the other institutions in our consortium. If they reached the consortial aggregate threshold (whether that was three items lost at one institution, or one item lost at each of three institutions), they were blocked from further circulation activity in ALL of the other consortial member institutions, with the option for them to also be automatically blocked at their home institution as well.
With Alma's Consortial Block functionality currently only being one-directional-- a patron blocked at HOME with a network block is blocked at the other network member institutions, but not the reverse-- it will be significantly more difficult for our institutions to encourage and monitor appropriate patron behavior.
-
19 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
Yes, I agree with this idea. Could this letter be changed to be sent by the user's home library, including ALL home library AND network library activity in one letter?
Currently, the letter is sent by the item's home library (where the loan transaction is recorded).
If the user's library is part of a consortium (especially one using the Automated Fulfillment Network), the patron is confused when the letter from their home library contains ONLY the activity at their home library and NO activity from the other libraries where they have activity.
If the consortium is large, all institutions have this letter enabled, and the patron is an active borrower, then the patron will receive altogether too many emails for the letter to be helpful to the patron (one per institution where the patron has activity). In our consortium, for a superuser, that could currently be up to 90 emails for a single patron to reflect their activity at any given time.
-
206 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
Hello!
I can see that the status for this issue is updated to "Accepted" on 8/31/2022.
Is there an ETA, or has it been placed into the roadmap?
Thanks much,
DebbieAn error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
Hello!
I can see that the status for this issue is updated to "Accepted" on 8/31/2022.
Is there an ETA, or has it been placed into the roadmap?
Thanks much,
DebbieAn error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
This issue remains an issue for our libraries two years later.
Our libraries at minimum should be able to tell from the active hold shelf which institution is the patron's home institution.Knowing the home institution, in many cases (when patron name is unique), would allow them to save the user's linked user record to their IZ to then have access to further user record details if needed, such as email address.
Debbie Campbell
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
This issue has become more important for our member libraries in that, with the COVID-19 pandemic, more of our libraries are using "contactless pickup" where the material needs to be checked out to the patron before placing it in a remote-retrieval site (such as lockers).
Without knowing the patron's institutional affiliation, library staff are unable to check out the item to the patron.
Debbie Campbell
shared this idea
·
-
18 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
It would be helpful, when loading an offline charge file into Alma, to provide a checkbox option to send loan receipts for each individual loan recorded in the upload file so that patrons are able to receive the e-mail reminder of their loan's due dates. (I understand that it would likely not be possible to collate the uploaded loans into a single email for the patron.)
-
36 votesDebbie Campbell
shared this idea
·
-
101 votes
It will be possible to set the library with a ‘pickup for guest users’ indication that can be turned off. This will prevent the library from showing up as pickup location on AFN/FN request forms
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
Hello Moshe!
Checking to see if any timeline updates for this request?
Has it been added to the roadmap?
Thanks much,
DebbieDebbie Campbell
supported this idea
·
Debbie Campbell
shared this idea
·
-
19 votesDebbie Campbell
shared this idea
·
-
149 votesDebbie Campbell
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
This would be a helpful enhancement- so many times libraries are creating/editing internal records at the circulation desk for community patrons, alumni, etc, and it would be ideal to then be able to give the patron a temporary password, that they are prompted to change on next login. Please make this functionality possible for Primo VE as well.
-
92 votesDebbie Campbell
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
Yes, I agree that it would be very helpful for patrons if the default selection was the "Has Activity" filter.
-
167 votes
Yes, it will be possible to schedule the purge users job.
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
My comment below originated as a separate Idea Exchange post, and it has been combined into this other Idea Exchange post, I assume by Ex Libris.
I do not think the two topics are the same, and I am not sure they should have been combined.
I am advocating for a job that can look at "empty" linked user records, aka, linked user records where the purge date may still be in the future, but, where the user record no longer has an active transaction.
The idea this was rolled into was asking for a way to schedule a purge job to run automatically, based on that purge date. This idea that it was rolled into is also making no distinction between local and linked user records.
Please note: If these two separate ideas can be solved in development at the same time, then it is okay to combine them into this one idea. But I do not want my original intention of my post to be lost within this combination.
An error occurred while saving the comment Debbie Campbell
commented
In Alma, Linked User records saved to another institutions IZ as part of a collaborative network are eligible for deletion following the same parameters as that IZ's home patron records:
1) Linked users can be manually deleted in Alma; statistics are not maintained.
2) Linked users can be purged using the Alma purge job; the criteria is the patron record's purge date.Alma is making the assumption that the user at Institution A will perpetually (as long as the user is an active/eligible user at Institution A) want to maintain their linked user accounts in all other instititions that are a part of the collaborative network (Institutions B - infinity).
This causes issues in large consortia using Alma collaborative networks:
1) Patron Identifiable Information is being maintained in the collaborative network IZs (outside the patron's home institution) for longer than is needed for transactions.
2) While Primo VE now contains an "activity" indicator to show a patron that they have a transaction with another institution, the overall list of institutions where the patron's record is maintained can be too long to be manageable. Patrons are also confused as to why a library would still be listed on their account, when they have no current activity at that other institution.In our previous system, Voyager, there was a Circulation server job that was set to automatically "Purge Universal Borrowing (UB) Patron Stub Records (Circjob 29)" (aka- Collaborative Network Linked User Records) after the record was no longer in use by a transaction at the institution. We ran the job every night.
https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/@api/deki/files/77521/Technical.pdf?revision=1The server job would identify linked user records and then check for the existence of fines/fees, holds, reqeusts, charged/checked out, or lost materials. If the system job found that the linked user record was "empty" aka, had no active transactions at the institution that should be used to prevent the record from deletion, the job would automatically purge the linked user record. The job did NOT delete a linked user record if it was still in use by a transaction. The server job retained the patron's statistics for reporting purposes, but the purge served to allow anonymization.
Please add a scheduled "purge empty linked user records" job to Alma that can be scheduled by each institution. Ideally, it should offer the institution the ability to select to run the job daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly.
Debbie Campbell
supported this idea
·
This functionality would still be beneficial!