We would like to propose an improvement to the search results for end-users in Primo. Our suggestion is to have an easier way to get back to the search results list if a document has several editions.
Currently, if a user opens a document that has several editions/versions, they have to reset their active search filters (“List of editions/versions”) in order to go back their original search results list. Our suggestion is to have a button that says “Back to results list” instead.

In addition, we propose that when returning to the results list, the user returns to the same place, and not at the top of the list. Today the user returns to the top of the results list when exiting the multiple record list.

I would like to suggest that Primo's facets should be sticky by default (or at least that this should be a configuration option). The "Reset filters" link right below the selected filters implies that filters will stick unless reset; users find this confusing. I agree with other posters' points about the lock icon being visible at all times, and that a selection of New Search should automatically clear sticky facets, but otherwise, I would like to propose that facets should stick unless the user either selects New Search, or clicks "Reset filters" (perhaps this could be renamed "Clear filters"). This is how PubMed functions, with an additional notification at the top of results that selected filters will remain in place until the user clears them.

Primo Central grouping is based on the existing FRBR workflow, including the grouping process at the database level (the way the Search engine handles grouping) and the Front End functionality. It is used to prevent duplicate records in the results list.

Unfortunately, many records are not added to FRBR groups because the system considers the metadata are not rich enough. With the increase of records provided by (Open Access) aggregators and repositories, the number of duplicate records will certainly not decrease.

Could Ex Libris improve the FRBR workflow for Primo Central records in order to reduce the number of duplicate results and consolidate the FRBR groups?
------

Examples of duplicate records:
Accuracy of prediction of gene content in large animal populations and its use for candidate gene detection and genetic evaluation
3 results (2 FRBR groups):
- TN_proquest195858157 and TN_faoagrisUS201300875183
- TN_crossref10.3168/jds.2007-0231, TN_scopus2-s2.0-42449094585, TN_sciversesciencedirect_elsevierS0022-0302(08)71293-1, TN_medline18349258
- TN_orbi2268/23076

Linguistic symbiosis between event loop actors and threads
2 results (1 FRBR group):
- TN_sciversesciencedirect_elsevierS1477-8424(08)00024-9
- TN_scopus2-s2.0-51649125887 and TN_crossref10.1016/j.cl.2008.06.005

Efficient control of transient wave forms to prevent spreading depolarizations
2 results (1 FRBR group):
- TN_arxiv0705.3398
- TN_scopus2-s2.0-39649117125, TN_sciversesciencedirect_elsevierS0022-5193(07)00579-6, TN_crossref10.1016/j.jtbi.2007.11.019, TN_medline18177900

Le traitement de la modalité épistémique dans les traductions françaises de On the Origin of Species de Charles Darwin
3 results:
- TN_erudit1038687ar
- TN_scopus2-s2.0-85017546223
- TN_proquest1870219718

Right now if an item is not available, then the item says "Checked out..." even if the item isn't actually checked out. In Alma, the status is under "Process type" and we want this more detailed "Process type" to be displayed to our users instead of just "Checked out.." for everything that isn't available. This is really confusing if the item is missing or being processed by our technical staff. We need to be able to tell users more detail. We have had several users request our library order a book and then when the book is being processed it says "Checked out" in Primo and then the user sees that it is checked out and gets upset that someone checked it out before them...since they are the ones that asked us to get it. But really it isn't checked out so what Primo is telling users is wrong. I know we can change the wording to something like "Unavailable" but that may indicate that the item may never be available and we really do want items that are actually checked out to say "Checked out".

Hi there,

According to SF case 422111 it's currently not possible to provide detailed statistics about advanced search field through OBI.

As for the facets, we would like to know the number of using field by field.

For example :
- We would like to know how many clicks were done on search field "Topic"
- We would like to know how many clicks were done on search field "Author"
- We would like to know in how many session the search field document type / books was used
- Which are the fields the most used in the advanced search, which are the less used ?

Those statistics would help us to improve our configuration according to patrons' needs.

Thanks for support !

Ariane

Option to allow a Primo user to select which scope they prefer to work with when multiple scopes. Two possibilities - allow this to be set for as a saved option for signed-in users only, or allow this to be set as a cookie for guest users and be saved as a cookie on that computer. This could apppear as a "Personalize" selection.

This will truly empower users - e.g. if they don't want to see Primo Central results most of the time, they will not be hampered by the library's choice of "All" as a default scope. Or if they want to see "All" or "Primo Central" (articles+) most of the time, but the library thinks most users will be better satisfied by the local catalog scope, they can get their wish without having to click into the drop-down list every time (or select a tab, if this is implemented in old UI). They would still have option to select another scope.