Pls. re-open this Idea

Hi,

I will resubmit this request to CERV.

Lynne

I too agree with the comments posted on 17 April 2025, concerning the closure of this Idea. Meghann Weldon's closure rationale indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem presented by Manu_Schwendener: in the scenario contemplated by Manu_Schwendener, the lender won't action Bad Citation, but will instead fulfil the request without an appreciation of its nuances, resulting in a resource supplied to the requester which doesn't take into account their special requirements.

I don't understand why this idea was closed by Ex Libris. The problem is not solved by using bad citation. If the important information was included by the patron in the note, she/he should not be bothered by a request to provide the information again (merely in a different field so that the library can read it). But this should be considered a bug anyway, not an enhancement.

I strongly support the comments so far about closing this request. The argumentation is not conclusive and it does not solve the described problem. It is not the case that the Lending Library cannot fulfill the request. It fulfills the request without knowing that the user has left a note.

> When a request can not be filled based on provided information

This does NOT cover our problem, please reopen!

The lending library does not realize that they don't see all information, they fulfill the request, the patrons do NOT get what they detailed, and to make matters worse their note TO THE LIBRARY is visible in the conformation email.

This is annoying for the patron and embarassing for the librarians: why did they just ignore what was clearly part of the request?

This reflects very badly on our institution and staff.

----

I know that the privacy argument floats around in this context.

This is absurd. The patrons write this information which is part of their request EXPLICITLY FOR THE LIBRARY to be able to send them exactly what they need.

It is unfortunate that Exlibris has closed this request. If Rapido's goal is to serve requests to users in the shortest possible time, not allowing the lending library to see user notes is a clear obstacle.

I am puzzled that Ex Libris has closed this proposal. The patron may have provided the necessary information in the notes field. It is just not visible to the lending library. In such cases, it is annoying for the lending and the borrowing library as well as for the patron (who has already provided the necessary information while ordering) to have to perform the bad citation action.

At IZ UBE, we strongly support this idea - we work with digitisations and MyBib and are also familiar with the problems caused by missing patron references.

In my opinion it is a bug, not a missing feature.

---

In the confirmation email the patron gets, the request note is visible.

But the library fulfilling the order did not see the note, and thus ignored it.

(adding this again, the screenshot got lost when I edited the earlier comment.)

And here's what the lending library sees / doesn't see:

- in Alma, via Rapido
- in MyBib

The REQUEST NOTE note is missing.

In the case of Alma there even is a field "Note", but it only contains a - .

In MyBib, there also is a field "Notes", which does not show the request note.

Can't attach another screenshot to an older comment, sorry.

Here's the cover letter of the scans.

Request note is missing.

Here's what I get as confirmation. The information is visible as Request note.

> Patron Notes fields are regularly used for the end user to share personal
> information with their library (email addresses, physical addresses..).

> significant risk of personal identifiable information (PII) being unintentionally shared
> between the borrowing library and lenders in the system. Patron Notes fields are regularly
> used for the end user to share personal information with their library (email addresses,
> physical addresses..). This information [...] is NOT RELEVANT TO THE LENDING LIBRARY.

Is Ex Libris' reply based on a misunderstanding? An unfortunate phrasing of the submission?

I don't think we are talking about the same field.

This is about the Comment field (= Request note) in the the Rapido form, see screenshot

> which I also submitted via the RapidILL IE

https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/935109-rapidill/suggestions/46644340-alma-borrowing-request-note

> Obviously, this would need a checkbox
> Ex Libris ... couldn't develop this

If we get _two_ note fields, this can be solved with clear labels, and the checkbox isn't necessary.

And/or a "disclaimer" text as part of the request form, not tied to a certain field (this may already be in place, I'll go check).

During last year's NERS voting, I tried promoting this idea (which I also submitted via the RapidILL IE). I was unable to convince EXL that the Request Note with information relevant to the request should be sent to other libraries, and another internal Note should be used for personal details or other sensitive data. Obviously, this would need a checkbox to ensure that the patron is aware of which information is being transferred. The response I received from EXL was that they couldn't develop this, which is strange because it seems quite simple to me. Also, if the Request Note is transferred with ISO requests, why not with Rapid requests?
For more details, pls. contact me: porat@univ.haifa.ac.il

From the Aha communication:

"There was a very similar request to this last year: [...] the Request Notes (as submitted by our patrons) are not carried over [...] These Notes frequently include important information such as the necessity of Figures / Plates / EndNotes that could help a Lender accurately and successfully fill the request."

"This request DID vote highly during the first round, but when ExLibris was examining it for pointing they indicated the following:
'... we have determined there is significant risk of personal identifiable information (PII) being unintentionally shared between the borrowing library and lenders in the system. Patron Notes fields are regularly used for the end user to share personal information with their library (email addresses, physical addresses..). [...]

[Ex Libris] would, however, be open to discussing this further with the community, and exploring how we can solve the core issue."

---

The patrons have no way of knowing that their information will be ignored by the system and thus by the library fulfilling their order.

This is not a privacy issue. If we need to warn the patrons not to enter confidential data, please add a checkmark they have to click or something similar.