Alma

Your feedback matters to us. Help us improve Alma by telling us what you’d like to see using the message areas below. You can also can support something already posted.

We would love to be able to respond to every idea that is submitted, but this is not feasible. We are, however, committed to responding to the most popular ideas—those that have received the most points.

For more information please review our FAQ and guidelines. Thank you.

  • Hot ideas
  • Top ideas
  • New ideas
  • My feedback
  1. 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! :)

    561 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)

    Alma team is analyzing to which indexes it is possible to add the “is not” and other negative comparators. In addition, there is a new feature coming called refined search which allows using indication rules created by the users (see Ability to search via free text MARC tag and subfields idea, NERS 2020).

  2. Analyse and normalise special characters and diacritics in Alma records

    In order to enable correct and consistent automatic linking between Bib. headings and authority records, Alma's treatment of diacritics needs to be normalised, and made configurable according to the Authority file being used. In addition there are special characters in use (such as quotation marks), that have more than a single graphic representation that should be normalised in order to prevent discrepancies in Almas' match and link mechanisms.
    SFC#00533813, SFC#00375370 relate to the issue.

    50 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
  3. Textual holdings statement fields 866-868

    Currently, you are only able to search the 866 field in Alma and Analytics. To record holdings more accurately, the 867 (supplemental material) and 868 (indexes) should be used. We have data stored in these fields and are unable to search/report on them easily. We would like the 867 and 868 fields to be searchable and perhaps even indexed in Alma, and reportable in Analytics. Reporting on any standard MARC field should be possible in both Alma and Analytics.

    13 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)

    Hello. What is the reason for not doing this as follows?
    Add the 866 – 868 as local fields for Alma Analytics Holdings Records. Each institution is allowed up to 10 holdings fields and 10 bibliographic fields as local fields.
    Further, as described at https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Knowledge_Articles/Add_bibliographic_fields_to_Alma_Analytics it is possible to have subfield delimiters in the local fields added to Alma Analytics.
    So you can already have 866 subfield x and z (for example) in Alma Analytics using existing functionality.

  • Don't see your idea?

Feedback and Knowledge Base