mcorby
My feedback
8 results found
-
117 votesmcorby
supported this idea
·
-
203 votes
Hi Elizabeth, Katie, and everyone,
Thanks so much for sharing this idea!
From what I understand, it includes two main parts:
- Allowing institutions to edit the list of values in various fields, with a specific example being the “Implemented Authorization Method” field.
- Adding more fields and making them reportable in Analytics, along with a request for a flexible mechanism to support this.
Regarding the second point — adding a flexible mechanism is quite a complex change and could impact the timeline.
If you can point out around three specific fields that are most important to add first, it might be easier.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
Thanks again,
Tamar
mcorby
supported this idea
·
-
187 votes
Hello all,
We are currently reviewing it to assess its technical feasibility and implications. We’ll follow up once we have more clarity.
mcorby
supported this idea
·
-
266 votes
Dear colleagues,
Thank you for raising this idea.
This was part of the CERV cycle in 2025, but did not make it to the final list.
During the analysis, 3 possible approaches were discussed, each has a different estimation and effort:
Option 1: New dedicated process type
- It will be possible to mark specific items as "unavailable", similarly to the way it is possible to mark them as "missing"
- Items marked as "unavailable" will be considered as "not in place"
- The new "unavailable" option will appear as a possible process type in all the places where there is a list of process types, including configuration options such as Fulfillment Unit Rules
Option 2: Mark a location as "unavailable"
- It will be possible to mark a location as "unavailable"
- All items in this location will be considered as "not in place"
- The difference from option 1 is that when an item…
mcorby
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment -
51 votesmcorby
supported this idea
·
-
74 votesmcorby
supported this idea
·
-
325 votesmcorby
shared this idea
·
-
78 votesmcorby
supported this idea
·
Having the option to make large numbers of items unavailable would be extremely useful. Usually we need to make batches of items unavailable because the items are in a physical location where the items are truly unavailable (possibly due to a building renovation). Another reason is that items are awaiting decisions to be withdrawn or transferred to a different location.
I would like to see the Unavailable option work the SAME as the Missing status. I can easily toggle an item from Missing to not Missing, and I would like to do the same with Unavailable. I can easily use Jobs to make items missing or not missing, and I would like to do the same with an Unavailable status.
There are a variety of reasons for why we make items missing. It is up to the library to determine the "behind-the-scenes" reasons why an item is missing. The same would be true for any library. The library would make decisions internally as to why they would use an Unavailable status.
I find Work Orders extremely clumsy to use. It is hard to get Work Orders applied, and even harder to get Work Orders removed. It always seems to take multiple clicks/scans.
When an item is made missing, it has a Process type of Missing. Why can't there be a process for Unavailable? On the Primo side, Missing items show to the public as Not available - Missing. Why can't Unavailable items just show to the public as "Not available?”