Exlibris Support suggested me to vote here, but seems like vote is no longer accepted.

What happen to us is that title + author search is not supported as the documentation stated, but partial title search only. That is why currently, we have erronous titles showing up in Primo solely based on titles, with different authors attached to the same record.

Hope ExLibris support would resolve the issue soon.

Thanks.

As recommended in a recently rec'd ticket update, I am adding comment: it would be desirable for the development to address similar scenarios where ISBN is present

Following. Very much interested in this for our March 2026 case 08366790

I can no longer add votes, is that because the Idea has been Accepted? The comment from Alma Product Team doesn't give any commitment as to which match points will be added and when. At the very least I would like to see Date as a required match point if it exists in the OpenURL. With OpenURLs we are at the mercy of whatever metadata the originating platform has chosen to include, so whatever can be done to reduce false-positive matches would be welcome.

This is also occurring with videos. Books are being linked in records for videos due to having the same title. ISBNs and authors are not available for videos.

I wanted to note the current options available:
• Configuration -> Resources -> Other settings > avoid_fuzzy_search_resolving = introduced in August 2023, applying to View It and Get It, and preventing title only matches where there is an identifier, title, author. Unfortunately this still allows match by only title + author, as well as title matches when there is only a title and no identifier and author
• Find GetIt services based on standard identifiers only (find_get_it_based_on_standard_identifiers_only) – early configuration switched from customer control to Ex Libris control, for Get It preventing matches except by identifier

But neither of these is sufficient to stop incorrect behaviour outcomes such as
• Primo presenting half a dozen false View it matches on CDI records to results like title Bacchae and author Euripides
• CDI book chapter records for a 2015 edition of ‘Answer to job’ that we don’t hold presenting links for the 2012 edition book we do hold

These scenarios mean that our patrons are frustrated in wasting time clicking on many links through to full text platform links only to find every single one of them is a different work, or getting a dead-end preventing them from seeing what they actually need to see, which are our services to place a document delivery request or a purchase request for resources we don’t hold.

We chose to use the setting to expand search by default when there are zero results. This meets the needs of patrons looking for known items and finding a record even if we don’t hold it, flowing straight through to submitting a request seamlessly with prefilled metadata.

This development gap completely undermines this streamlined flow and relegates Primo back to only being a catalogue rather than a discovery and access platform. But actually it’s even worse than that because the inventory does not even match the bibliographic record like in a local-only catalogue.

Primo VE is also a downgrade from Primo BO for this topic, due to the dynamic nature of the link resolver call updating the availability statement upon opening expanded search records to state online availability based on only title+author matches, and flipping the How to Get It falsely to View It.

It’s astounding that this issue still hasn’t been addressed in a decade.

Book chapters of one edition are also connected to a different edition. This is a problem with textbooks more than works of fiction.

I'm out of votes but this is a problem we encounter regularly, and it is always embarrassing to tell users it's a known issue and there is nothing we can do about it. This related Idea Exchange attempts to propose a solution for part of the problem: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/48934466-allow-institutions-to-exclude-the-776-from-the-cdi

This is an almost 10 year old issue. It is extremely misleading and frustrating for patrons to see and expect to be taken to a chapter that they see as Available Online only to be taken to a different edition. https://librarysearch.ohsu.edu/permalink/01ALLIANCE_OHSU/1qsrj/cdi_proquest_ebookcentralchapters_31063385_290_941

Hi,
This looks to me the same as https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/18713167-make-alma-resolver-better-at-locating-books-and-bo:
The other idea refers to both publisher and date, while this idea refers to publisher only.
Is this correct?

Thanks,
Tamar

Currently, Alma Resolver identifies resources with the same name and author as matches, even when the publishers differ, meaning that the rft.publisher values are not taken into account.
This can lead to confusion and errors in identifying the correct resources, potentially leading to incorrect citations or misattributed information. To improve, we suggest the following:
* Publisher Verification: If the rft.publisher field differs between resources, Alma Resolver should determine this as a mismatch.
* User Notification: Notify users when resources with matching titles but different publishers exist
* Customizable Settings: Allow Alma users to customize Alma Resolver settings related to publisher information handling

Related idea posted in 2017:
https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/18713167-make-alma-resolver-better-at-locating-books-and-bo