Kevin M. Randall
My feedback
15 results found
-
26 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Kevin M. Randall supported this idea · -
26 votesKevin M. Randall supported this idea ·
-
336 votesKevin M. Randall supported this idea ·
-
224 votes
Dear all, since this idea combines various very different enhancement requests for Alma's normalization rules infrastructure, we are unable to add these to our roadmap at this time. This may change as we get more information on prioritization and needs. In the meantime, we suggest opening dedicated ideas for specific enhancements you would like to promote.
Kevin M. Randall supported this idea · -
14 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Kevin M. Randall commentedWhile this sounds like it might be helpful, I'm trying to figure out how the system would know what limits to put on the exported results. In theory, the results could include the entire database, sorted by the specific elemented being browsed. When putting a value into a browse search, you are telling the system to throw you into that specific spot in the entire index. How far back, and how far forward, should the exported results go? Or is your idea that the export would include only the results currently showing in the results window?
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Kevin M. Randall commentedIt seems that the "Last updated ..." information in the popup window pertains not to the item record, but to the HOLDINGS record. For instance, today I edited the 866 fields (textual holdings statements) in a holdings record, without touching anything in the 852 field. Then, looking at some of the items, I see that all of the items are showing the date, time, and operator pertaining to the holdings record update. No actions had been taken by me or by a job that would have affected the item records.
Kevin M. Randall shared this idea · -
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Kevin M. Randall commentedIt is currently possible to duplicate a MARC field by copying and pasting. With the cursor anywhere in the field, Edit > Copy, or Ctrl+C, will copy the entire field to the clipboard. Then, Edit > Paste, or Ctrl+V, will paste the field above whatever field the cursor is in.
-
4 votesKevin M. Randall supported this idea ·
-
18 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Kevin M. Randall commentedIt is already possible to move the item records to either a different holdings record on the same bib ("Change Holdings" button) or a holdings record on a different bib ("Relink to another Bib" button).
-
55 votesKevin M. Randall supported this idea ·
-
11 votesKevin M. Randall supported this idea ·
-
16 votesKevin M. Randall supported this idea ·
-
94 votesKevin M. Randall supported this idea ·
-
68 votesKevin M. Randall supported this idea ·
-
6 votesKevin M. Randall supported this idea ·Kevin M. Randall shared this idea ·
We have certain categories of items to which we do not assign barcodes, and since these cannot be scanned, it appears that the ONLY way to change the process type for these items is to edit each individual item record one by one. The ability to change process type by a batch job would save a ***LOT*** of work. Specifically, idea #1 in Eric's idea would solve this particular problem.