Deborah Fitchett

My feedback

  1. 13 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Alma » Link Resolver  ·  Admin →

    Thank you for your feedback.
    Today Primo does present viewit services for resources that do not have full text indications.
    We will check with Primo if this can be changed as the Unpaywall service can appear also when there is no full text service.

    Note that this issue is not relevant to PrimoVE

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Deborah Fitchett commented  · 

    (Just because subscriptions/OA status is volatile, noting another example, this one in production, where oadoi.org gives a result but the Unpaywall link doesn't appear: https://primo-direct-apac.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_ovid00006114-201303190-00024&context=PC&vid=LU&lang=en_US&search_scope=All_resources&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any,contains,chocolate&facet=searchcreationdate,include,2000%7C,%7C2020&offset=0&pcAvailability=true)

    (Also noting that on an Alma-L email on 10th Nov 2019 Dana noted that they had identified an issue that "Unpaywall service does not appear when it is the only service available" which might be construed as describing this issue? She said it would be resolved as part of the December release but this issue still exists.)

    Deborah Fitchett shared this idea  · 
  2. 84 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Deborah Fitchett supported this idea  · 
  3. 252 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Deborah Fitchett supported this idea  · 
  4. 30 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Deborah Fitchett commented  · 

    Ease of setting up/maintaining normalisation rules is one of our key requirements for moving to Primo VE so this is very important to us.

    Deborah Fitchett supported this idea  · 
  5. 7 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Leganto  ·  Admin →
    Deborah Fitchett shared this idea  · 
  6. 35 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Deborah Fitchett supported this idea  · 
  7. 16 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Deborah Fitchett supported this idea  · 
  8. 37 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Deborah Fitchett shared this idea  · 
  9. 138 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Deborah Fitchett commented  · 

    Further feedback on this: because the review type currently contains 2 things we're really concerned about the August release lowering the ranking of reviews. Book reviews should be ranked lower than the books they review - but systematic reviews are exceptionally valuable (we've seen lecturers enthusiastically praising the "Review" facet to their students because they're assuming it's only literature reviews) and shouldn't be ranked lower.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Deborah Fitchett commented  · 

    I think it would be useful for Ex Libris to confirm what their intentions are! I'd expect systematic reviews to come under "article", yes, but also see the value of it appearing under an additional "review article" or "systematic review" facet - just not under the facet that covers book reviews, computer reviews, car reviews, etc, which are entirely different.

    Deborah Fitchett supported this idea  · 
  10. 51 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Deborah Fitchett supported this idea  · 
  11. 75 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Deborah Fitchett supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Deborah Fitchett commented  · 

    Speaking for my library, we want to be able to move the "Send-to" section below the "Get it" section.

    I've got some neat Angular from another library that lets me switch pretty much any other section. But when I try to switch Get It and Send To, it gets very confused about where to put the 'sign in' message (this appears to be calculated by assuming Get It will always be second in order....)

  12. 21 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Deborah Fitchett commented  · 

    We have a lot of users who think they have to use the arrows to change the year by 1 at a time and don't realise they can retype it at all. :-o

    Deborah Fitchett supported this idea  · 
  13. 12 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Deborah Fitchett supported this idea  · 
    Deborah Fitchett shared this idea  · 
  14. 102 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Deborah Fitchett supported this idea  · 
  15. 167 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Deborah Fitchett supported this idea  · 
  16. 115 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Deborah Fitchett supported this idea  · 
  17. 26 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Deborah Fitchett supported this idea  · 
  18. 44 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
  19. 52 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Deborah Fitchett supported this idea  · 
  20. 20 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Deborah Fitchett commented  · 

    This would also help with a use case we have: We're harvesting from a small OAI feed that can't supply 'delete' data, so we have to run regular delete-and-reload pipes. Obviously for this case we have to set the date back to before the repository began every time we run it.

    Deborah Fitchett supported this idea  · 
← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base