Skip to content

How can we improve Alma?

← Alma

Make configurable pop-up assistance in metadata editor

Currently the po-up assistance in metadata editor for subfields 260$a$b$e$f, 264$a$b, 505$r$t and 561$a is hardcoded and it can not be deactivated. Activation/Deactivation should be configurable. We have many queries from our catalogers about that.

305 votes
Vote

We're glad you're here

Please sign in to leave feedback
Signed in as (Sign out)
Close
Close
You have left! (?) (thinking…)
Gaspar Olmedo shared this idea  ·   ·  Admin →
How important is this to you?

We're glad you're here

Please sign in to leave feedback
Signed in as (Sign out)
Close
Close

We're glad you're here

Please sign in to leave feedback
Signed in as (Sign out)
Close
Close
Submitting...
An error occurred while saving the comment
  • Tao You commented  · 

    Catalogers in our institution would like the ability to turn off the pop-up assistance in MDE as well.

  • Chris Sloan commented  · 

    I would also question the accuracy of the controlled vocabulary, which features this value at line 3:

    "Biannual (once every year)"

    and no entry for Biennial

  • Kevin M. Randall commented  · 

    It seems that recently the 310 field has been added to the group of fields that get automatic pop-up assistance--with the additional "benefit" of having the MDE give a warning upon save if the cataloger-input data in 310 doesn't match whatever vocabulary that Alma is trying to control the field with. 310 is NOT a controlled field, it is FREE TEXT. We have catalogers here wondering why "Semiannual" (a preferred term since forever) in the 310 is now giving a warning...

  • Kevin M. Randall commented  · 

    This is a feature that should NEVER have been part of the system, and I cannot imagine what the developers were thinking when they created it. It absolutely MUST be removed. The only fields in which this kind of feature makes sense are those in which the data come from a controlled vocabulary, not transcriptions from the resource.

  • Anonymous commented  · 

    I also find it confusing for staff when it deletes subfield c metadata upon selection of one of the options for the 264 field.

  • Anonymous commented  · 

    My opinion may be in the minority here, but as an occasional cataloger, I find the 264 assistance helpful. I prefer this be configurable as opposed to removed completely, which is being suggested elsewhere.

  • Elisa Sze commented  · 

    Also for 264. I agree that the autocomplete suggestions do not make sense in these subfields, given that these subfields are meant to be transcribed from the resource being catalogued. The pop-up suggestions create confusion for staff who are either new to cataloguing or only occasionally works with bibliographic records.

  • Lisa Hatt commented  · 

    Agree - autosuggestion doesn't make sense here and is annoying.

Alma: Metadata Management

Categories

Feedback and Knowledge Base

(thinking…)