Do not merge the "From page" and "To page" in Lending Requests
Currently, the "From" and "To" page range indicated by patron users in the request form are displayed separately in the Borrowing Request, but are merged in a single "From page" field on the Lending side.
This sometimes leads to missing information on the Lending side.
We had cases where patrons added e.g. "1-2" in the "From" field and "4-5" in the "To" field, in order to get four pages scanned with one single request (let's say that they knew page 3 only contained ads).
By design, the "From" and "To" fields were merged when transferring the information from the Borrowing Library to the Lending Library, and the double page range was not kept. Instead, the Lending Library only saw the first range ("1-2").
This was checked in SFC 7265382 and is by design.
On our opinion, allowing both ranges to be kept, though, would be very helpful. It would be more helpful
A) not to merge the "From" and "To" fields in a single field in the Lending Request, so that no data is lost at all
or B) to keep all contents of the "To" field when merging the data, also in this case with the goal not to lose any information
Sabina Walder (SLSP)
shared this idea
-
Carl Bidwell
commented
You’re right to flag this; merging those fields clearly creates room for data loss and misinterpretation, especially in real-world cases like non-contiguous page requests. Even if it’s “by design,” it doesn’t fully reflect how patrons actually use the form. Keeping the “From” and “To” fields separate on the lending side would preserve intent much better, or at the very least, concatenating both inputs during the merge would avoid dropping important details. Another option could be introducing a dedicated “page notes” or “custom ranges” field to capture these edge cases more explicitly. Small change, but it would save a lot of back-and-forth and improve request accuracy overall.
-
Adam Smith commented
This is an important usability concern in RapidILL’s lending workflow. When the system merges “From” and “To” page fields, it can lead to loss of critical request details, especially in cases where non-continuous page ranges are needed.
Keeping these fields separate, or at least preserving all entered data, would improve accuracy, reduce back-and-forth between libraries, and make the overall document delivery process more efficient. Visit https://estateagentsilford.co.uk/ -
John William
commented
I agree with the suggestion that keeping “from page” and “to page” separate in lending records would improve clarity and help avoid confusion during processing; even small usability improvements like those highlighted at https://realestateagentslondon.co.uk/ can make workflows more efficient, especially when handling multiple article requests in RapidILL systems.
-
Adeel Mughal commented
I completely agree with this suggestion. Merging the “From” and “To” page fields on the lending side can definitely cause loss of important information, especially in cases where users intentionally request non-contiguous pages. Keeping both ranges intact or at least preserving all entered data would improve accuracy and reduce confusion for lending libraries. This small change could make the workflow much more reliable and user-friendly. visit:https://propertymanagementcompany.uk/
-
Shopkin commented
In Lending Requests, it is important to keep the “From page” and “To page” fields separate to ensure clarity and accuracy in document or material requests. Merging these fields could cause confusion, as each serves a distinct purpose—“From page” specifies the starting point of the requested content https://snapchatplanetorder.com/, while “To page” marks the end point.