JMC
My feedback
22 results found
-
56 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
shared this idea
·
-
45 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
I concur, but for the opposite reason. Normally, we do NOT want to recall, but rather want to be able to hold the item for an interested patron at whatever point the item is returned and to prevent a RENEWAL. Basically, there is a difference between a hold and a recall, and we need both.
-
140 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
See also "Add the ability to set individual user preferences or defaults when creating item records."
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
Would it be possible for there to be multiple "default" options, and the acquisitions operator can select whichever is appropriate? This would allow for more specificity in the holdings record created as part of ordering, because fixed fields could be coded properly for monographs (2=Received and complete or 3=On Order) vs serials (3 or 4=Currently received) and for additional media-specific fields to be included (again, using serials as an example, addition of 852/863/866).
-
204 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
I support any improved utilization of the detailed and useful information in LC authority records.
JMC
supported this idea
·
-
58 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
I wholehearted support this idea, despite having no votes to give at the moment. ALL fields should be indexed.
-
60 votesJMC
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
I also believe this is the behavior the user expects when entering a comment.
-
104 votes
Hello,
Unfortunately there are some delays with producing the file.
It is no longer planned, and I apologize for misleading the community with giving a timeline.
I will update the idea once i have more information.
Thanks,
Tamar
JMC
supported this idea
·
-
118 votesJMC
supported this idea
·
-
42 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
Great suggestion, but unfortunately, labeling is problematic, since MARC21 prescribes different information for the various ENUM/CHRON fields, depending upon what information, in total, is present on the item. So, although Primo forces us to always use CHRON I for the year if we want the dates to match up with the labels on the holdings filter drop-downs, according to MARC21, a year on a serial which does not use enumeration should actually go in the ENUM A field.
I also like the suggestion of drop downs, but in this case, it is likewise impractical, since there is so much variability in what can/should go in any one field.
-
91 votesJMC
supported this idea
·
-
17 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
This would be particularly useful for things such as kits, realia, musical recordings, etc., where it is common for there to be no ISBN.
-
226 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
This seems very useful.
-
48 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
Yes, please!
-
88 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
I agree.
-
20 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
Yes, yes, yes!
-
12 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
Clearly, improved use of the information in ALL the 245 subfields is important to many of us. This is one of FOUR similar/related requests, with a total of 50 votes as of 8/16/2016:
• "The 245 field should display in repository search results, even if there is no 245$a" (10 votes)
• "Please make the MARC bib. 245 subfield p from the bibliographic record available" (2 votes)
• "Make 245 $p, $n, $s, $k, $f, $g part of "Title" resource description when viewing/editing holdings and item record details" (13 votes)
• "Make 245 $p, $n, $s, $k, $f, $g part of "Title" criteria in Analytics &/or make them available as separate criteria" (25 votes) -
22 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC
commented
Thanks, Carmel. Vote moved.
-
112 votesJMC
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesJMC
supported this idea
·
-
96 votesJMC
supported this idea
·
To clarify, the most specific thing I am looking for is two additions on the "Scan In Items" page. The first is a "Use/Scan from Set" option, which would then present the user with the list of eligible sets, like happens when running a change holdings job, for instance. The second would be an "Upload/Scan from File" option, which would then prompt you to browse to a .txt or .csv file, as is done for import jobs.
The efficiency I am seeking is in getting items moved along in a workflow or pushed through to/from transit and other statuses to "Item in Place"