> You can now define the preferred record displayed for FRBR to be the recent edition

March 2023, checked in Primo VE:

If you use
Define FRBR display for local records: Preferred

and
Sort FRBR Versions list by: Date – newest

the title that is shown in the short title list is NOT the newest one.

If you want to use this option, you need to open a support case with Ex Libris.

The screenshots are from a test view, which is why I don't post the URL.

"Besides, it is important to [...] display only records that match with the search"

YES!

The ability to quickly see the most current relevant results is key to good user experience. Please count me in as a vote for favoring the latest edition of bibliographic work to top the FRBR group.

I see that this is planned, but during COVID it has become even more crucial for staff and patrons stretched for time and resources to have the requested item be the desired item upon pickup.

Besides, it is important to have possible filtering FRBR groups to display only records that match with the search definition. It happens in recommended bibliography. They are reprints of the same book with the same ISBN, but students need only the last reprint. So, it would be useful to filter FRBR groups and display the last reprint.

We would appreciate the possibility to boost the digital or electronic version for display in the brief results, as it is the one immediately accessible to our users.
In general, it would be a great improvement if the version on brief display could be determined by several criteria, most importantly (next to electronic or print) by publication date.

We have our local FRBR groups set to Generic, instead of Preferred, for the top record, and then sort by Date-newest within, which seems like the best way currently to overcome this.

Just a restating of the problem from our point of view (copied from our previous NERS request):

FRBR grouping is based on title and author, and the "preferred record" chosen to display by default in search results is determined based on "relevance".

This works poorly for textbooks, where users almost invariably want the latest edition. Instead they're often presented with an old edition for opaque reasons (perhaps an algorithm notes that one of their search terms occurs 6 times in the 3rd edition's abstract and only 5 times in the 9th edition's abstract). Users assume this is the most recent version we have and don't look any further.

Conversely we imagine that in some settings, the oldest version would be the most canonical - Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland would be the appropriate one to display, and not the omnibus, sequel, audiobook, or movie.

So it would be great if the option could be provided for libraries to choose either:
1) relevance ranking only (status quo)
2) prefer newer editions
3) prefer older editions

We would also like this feature...specifically, location sort. Once a patron selects the frbr group to view the individual records, we'd like our library's record to sort higher than the record from another library in our consortium.