Hi Noam,

Three and a half years later...
I would like to ask again when the first two points will be implemented?

Kind regards
Birgit

For more than two years, this proposal has been accepted - is there already a time horizon for implementation.
Please provide feedback and kind regards Fritz

Hi @Noam Fass

this is about a development that was already accepted by Ex Libris in 2021. If I see it correctly, only the third aspect you described has been implemented in Alma so far.

When will the first two points be implemented?

Best regards
Birgit

Pretty please, make the Interested User fields searchable! How else would one be able to remove a User from all PO lines when they leave the institution?

Hopefully this idea will be implemented very soon! It will save acquisition librarians a lot of time!

Would it be possible to allow libraries to select a hold location for an interested user at the time the order is created? Currently, the item is always placed on hold at the circ desk attached to the item's permanent location. This isn't always convenient for users, and it's particularly problematic if the circ desk attached to the item's permanent location doesn;t have a hold shelf. In those instances, the hold reqeust is never created, and the user never receivs the item.

As mentioned by Birgit there is another idea (38225047) that we need the option to have hold requests for interested users if the POLs are created by an import profil. Now we have to check this manually for every interested user in every POL. If you work on this idea couldn't you solve this problem too?

This is great news!

As we use the interested user list mainly for circular routing of print-journals it would be perfect if these features could be added as well:

- directly e-mail to ALL users on an certain interested user list
- getting a list of all users, who are in any interested user list
- in the user details show a tab which contains all the "interested user lists" a patron is part of.

Thank you

Hi Noam,
great news, thanks!
One question : will that new check mark for "Loan" be a manual check box like the "Hold item" one for every interested user or an automated feature? What difference with the current "Hold item" checkbox?
Currently we have to check this check box manually for every interested user, as the default is set to "No" and is not configurable. That is very time consuming.
(cf idea :https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/38225047-automatic-hold-item-check-for-its-interested-user)

UniSA has utilised the Alma Interested user functionality this year and it is working very well for us.
We certainly endorse the request for extended functionality.

Adding a sorting feature to the Name column of the Interested Users and apply the sorting by default could be helpful to avoid the list from scrambling the order of priority.

Is it possible to have an update on any plans from Ex Libris in this area ( i.e. roadmap plans etc) as it is a long-standing area of interest and something where the absence of functionality as regards holds control and letters which has perhaps prevented more customers from taking it up in daily use.
Thanks!

Our experience is a new 'request' can override a previously created 'interested user'... which for us makes the 'interested user' option not a good one; clarity on how the two work/interact would be helpful

It would be great to even search the po-lines by interested user names. Right now, the search is only "yes-no" and the excel report, also does not include the names.

It would be great if you can include "after an invoice is paid".
Sometimes, we need to notify faculty or other departments for reimbursement only after the payment is made. Another use for this could be for claiming online access after the invoice is paid for some of the free online content with physical purchase.

I find it absolutely astounding that you still can't sort the interested user list. It's such a basic function of any good LMS.

If a patron has been waiting several weeks for a book on order, and another patron comes along and is added to the list, we want the first patron who requested the item to be the first person on the list. Currently Alma adds people any which way, meaning someone who has been waiting months might end up at the bottom of the list.

For journal circulation, it is really important that the right people receive the journal in a timely fashion. Without the ability to sort the interested user list, we've ended up with people who are interested in browsing a journal for fun, listed before those requiring fast access to articles in the journal in order to do their job.

I don't know of any library that would want their interested users to be sorted randomly, with no ability to move names around if/when required.

I really hope this is something that will be fixed by ExLibris soon.

It is frustrating that this idea was launched in November 2016 and its implementation is still pending in July 2018. This should be a basic functionality of any library system and not depend on a voting result. Ex Libris, why do you ignore the library community for whom Alma is supposed to be an improvement?

A routing list is a very important tools for librarians and users. A paper issue has to circulate in the instution. We don't purchase periodicals for our shelves and users have few time to visit the libraries. The routing list is an essential push service.
In Alma, the addresses of patrons are available (updating weekly from our directory) and issues are also available. Could you please find a solution to gather these information in a routing list.
Many thanks

Would be nice to have the possibility to print the interested user list for circulation of items automatically from Alma at check-in of the item (as it is in Aleph)

I would also like the option to notify users at a different point than "when the item arrives in the receiving department." That is the last thing I want my patrons knowing; I am happy to notify them when it becomes *available*, but they don't need to know how bad my backlog is. Thanks.