Remove field 655 from the subject facet
In Primo VE the 655 are shown in the Subject facet. As the 655 relate to form and not to content, they should not be shown as subjects. Furthermore, the 655 are correctly shown in the “Genre” facet.
The 655 should be excluded from the Topic facet in the Facets Section Mapping:
https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Product_Documentation/020Primo_VE/Primo_VE_(English)/120Other_Configurations/Mapping_to_the_Display%2C_Facets%2C_and_Search_Sections_in_the_Primo_VE_Record#Facets_Section_Mapping
Manu Schwendener
shared this idea
-
This should work now for new titles.
Old titles will need the full re-indexation which should be finished 5.2.2023.
-
> none of the rules for controlling your own metadata in any respect (facet,
> display, search, addata, links, browse, sort, etc) should be hardcoded.I agree of course.
-
Floriane Pochon Levit
commented
The more general idea to be able to change the search/facet rules in addition to the display rules in the OTB "display fields" is here : https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/38101678-primo-ve-add-option-to-mark-all-display-fields-fo
It is very frustrating when coming from Primo BO... and a parity issue indeed.
-
Stacey van Groll
commented
Exactly.
This is an internal discussion only because the current model is that Ex Libris must change this for all VE sites.
And other sites may like to have these terms in their facet.So Ex Libris has made a problem for themselves due to ensuring that they are the only decision-makers of what all VE sites presents to their users, rather than this being a decision of your library for your users.
The standard response to this is that they hardcoded what the majority of sites configured in Back Office rules.
Our response is that we don't care what the majority does, and don't see why we should be limited in what we do for our users by "Majority rules".The very short answer is that none of the rules for controlling your own metadata in any respect (facet, display, search, addata, links, browse, sort, etc) should be hardcoded.
-
> VE sites must ask Ex Libris to make this change
This is what we did in 2020, but to no avail.
We got told that it was 'in internal discussion' at Ex Libris.
-
Stacey van Groll
commented
The key issue for me with this is that VE sites must ask Ex Libris to make this change, and it is hardcoded for all VE sites.
This is enforced homogeneity for no reason other than that it's "easier" and avoids "complexity", which is a summary of the VE model.
This could work if VE had OTB rules but sites also had the autonomy of choice to change them, if they choose to do additional work.
This is a parity issue, because this ability is exactly what exists in Primo Back Office for 15 years. -
We have been trying to get this solved since before we went live in December 2020.