JMC
My feedback
17 results found
-
56 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC shared this idea ·
-
47 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.
-
142 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).
-
205 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 votes
JMC 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.
-
115 votes
JMC 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.
-
92 votes
JMC supported this idea ·
-
39 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.
-
48 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC commented
Yes, please!
-
107 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!
-
112 votes
JMC supported this idea ·
-
96 votes
JMC supported this idea ·
-
48 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC commented
YES!!!! It would also be helpful to be able to see exactly which records are locked so the cataloger can investigate further (for example, look at the history to see when last saved and note what, if any, changes have been made) before just releasing, or saving and releasing. This is particularly important when releasing records locked by other users. Thank you.
-
47 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC commented
Sorry -- bad cut and paste -- please also see "Improve sort order in configuration lists" under Other :-)
An error occurred while saving the comment JMC commented
Please see also "Add ability to reorder Description Template Setup Rules using drag and drop" under Resource Management and "Improve the ease of reordering the Online Services Order and General Electronic Services Order tables" under Other
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"