In Advanced Search, allow filtering OUT specific locations. For example, allow use of the filer: Physical Location "IS NOT" X.
Many searches do not allow for an "IS NOT" operator, and in some cases it is greatly missed. For example, when trying to assemble large sets of records where you want to exclude just a few locations, or filter out a single library. Please allow for an "IS NOT" operator when doing an advanced search and filtering by location or library. I'm sure there are other search filters also missing the "IS NOT" operator. Please feel free to add more suggestions via a comment! :)
I would like to promote the solution to this important idea.
First I would like to clarify that already today in Advance Search you can filter out by locations (see attached screenshot). When choosing the physical item advance search "current location you can choose “not equal” and then choose multiple values. Also, you can do the same for the library and Holdings location.
We will add to existing indexes which are at the same level as the searched records or above negative comparators. Such as Item Call Number, Chronology, Description, Internal note, and more.
The special use case of searching for records with child records that all of them answer the question “not” having … should be handled as a separate idea since a new index that combines both levels needs to be created.
As a note, I would like to add that there are additional planned features that will help with the search logic such as the ability to have multiple values selection for facets (part of using the new UI concepts – see roadmap)
Florian Ruhland commented
As far as I can tell and as far as our needs are concerned use case 1 will do. I am not sure about use cases 2a and 2b. Use case 1 would correspond to the operator IS NOT we used to have in most if not all library catalogs and databases I came across in the last 25 years, am I right? That would be very handy. Even if you don't use IS NOT every day - in those cases you need it, it's hard if not impossible to figure out an alternative query. And I just don't see why Alma shouldn't be able to do what all kinds of old-fashioned library catalogs were able to do ...
Ex Libris is working on adding the "is not" operator whenever is possible. There are two different major use cases:
1. Condition in the same level as the entity being requested. For example All items not in a specific library.
2. Condition in a lower level (child) than the entity being requested. For example titles without items in Library A.
The first use case can be addressed and if there are gaps we will close them. The second use case is the problematic one. There are two sub-use cases for the second case Condition in a lower level:
2a. Entity partially meets the condition. For example, titles that part of their items are not in library A.
2b. Entity fully meets the condition. For example, titles that *all* of their items are not in library A.
The 2b sub-use cases require a totally different search infra and are not trivial.
The question is if sub-use case 2a is relevant or not. If 2a is not relevant then we can block the option to use "is not" operator for the level below. If it is relevant then the user should be aware that it will provide an answer to sub-use case 2a.
Esther Ernst commented
We have just changed from Aleph to Alma and are also very much missing the "IS NOT" operator, e.g. in the search indexes of the CZ "Authorities". Especially for cleaning up-work in Authorities it is absolutely necessary to be able to exclude criteria. The Boolean Operator "NOT" is basics for librarian work and we just don't understand why it should be missing.
We would be very grateful if the operator "NOT" could be allowed just as "AND" and "OR".
Sean Purcell commented
When doing an "electronic titles" search there is no "IS NOT" operator for "electronic collection name". Please add the IS NOT operator here. Interestingly, when doing an advanced search of "electronic collections", you CAN say electronic collection name "IS NOT" X.