Stacey van Groll

My feedback

  1. 3 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  2. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  3. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Alma » User Management  ·  Admin →
    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  4. 102 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    It's so wonderful to see the community support for this idea, both here and in the annual 2021 Alma enhancements cycle, to get my #7177 submission to No.1 position in the final round voting.
    This will be a significant positive level of development to our autonomy of record management in Alma, and through into how we choose to make our resources discoverable in Primo.
    Thank you everyone for supporting this enhancement with your valuable votes.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    I have submitted this idea to the Alma 2021 enhancement round, so everyone who has voted here who is interested, please consider sparing some votes for it as #7177 "Add option to configure Process Types for Unavailable Physical Items, without creation of requests".

    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Another use case: We have put this into place again for one of our Libraries, as part of our COVID-19 response, to ensure our collections remain visible, while still correctly marked as Unavailable by brief results availability and 'Temporarily unavailable' by Get It status.
    Alma should be flexible enough to allow library staff autonomy to display our records in this manner when we need it, in a quick and easy process, so that we don't have to co-opt another hardcoded process as a workaround.

    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  5. 5 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Hi Moshe,
    I don't think such workflows for rejected requests are unknown to Ex Libris. It's necessary for monitoring, tracking, and resolving requests in a variety of scenarios, such as those which were cancelled while In Transit. This then hinders other workflows such as deleting a Library. Alma should not just 'disappear' a request as if it never existed, and we need visibility of all requests in Alma. This should already be the case under the 'All' filter selection, which is a defect. But it would also be helpful as this submission suggests to specifically add also a 'Rejected' filter. I am well aware from a case open for years that this filter was about to be released, and was even in Release Notes for May 2021, and then was pulled last minute.

    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  6. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    I'm curious as to why they're bothering to go to Browse Search when they're already browsing? Why do they feel they have to perform the search again when they're in a results list by that term and can adjust the Advanced Search query or use the nested facets? Browse Search will actually limit their results, in only including local records when the lateral link shown in your screencast includes remote CDI records as well which match the term.

  7. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Discovery Configuration is only for Primo VE customers for UI elements, so I don't agree that GES is a better fit there than Fulfillment, which is an Alma configuration menu for all Alma customers and which is focused on access ie more service links.

    I strongly disagree that Administrator level privileges of such high visibility to users with associated significant risk assessment should ever be added to Manager level roles.
    Only Administrators should be able to implement, adjust, or delete new user services.

    If this is developed, please do so as opt-in only as first preference, and as second preference please do not embed it in existing privileges but add new ones which allow for customers to request these privileges be removed from the roles.

  8. 112 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  Primo » Other  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 
  9. 3 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 
  10. 3 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 
  11. 126 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    It is really unfortunate that the new pagination option to display up to 50 results by user selection in May 2021 was not included in Collection Discovery, which keeps the same Load More Results.
    This also adds a design inconsistency across Primo interfaces.
    The design is that it will only apply to Collection Discovery if a user sets this already for the session in main Primo and then happens to navigate into Collection Discovery.
    As it is a very common user pathway to provide direct links to specific collections, such as promoting content in a web page by direct link to a collection, this means that a user is guaranteed to bypass main Primo and then miss out on the opportunity to set an increase in page numbers.

  12. 79 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    This needs to be for both users and Ex Libris changes by 'System'. It's so cumbersome and time-consuming to have to constantly navigate to the separate CZUTL interface and use half a dozen different filters to see all the changes.

    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  13. 3 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Alma » Analytics  ·  Admin →
    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  14. 6 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Alma » Other  ·  Admin →
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  15. 6 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Great idea. We sorely need Ex Libris to recognise that automation is not always awesome and we need to be able to stop Alma from "helping" when it is not helpful.

    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  16. 4 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Primo » Other  ·  Admin →
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  17. 63 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Completely agree. Ideally there would be a personalisation menu available for features such as this the the user's account area, flowing from features which a site chooses to have active, and then additionally empowering the user to make their own choice.

    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  18. 4 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  19. 10 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  20. 47 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Doesn't that CSS code just hide the suggestion, Manuela? The DYM index is taking effect on the results in Primo VE, right? So the results would still be highlighted as 'light', using the original example.
    I often think that the downfall of this feature is what seems to be the unnecessary complexity, so it is almost impossible to explain.
    For example, if I test this on one of my local data sources with Hmong consumers, I get two results with among and consumers highlighted. If I choose the suggestion for 'among consumers', then I get 19 results, some of which have among and consumers also clearly in the data, including the title. But the key is that the two which showed up originally have apparently been triggered by the Levenshtein distance aspect of the distance between the two words (it's not documented what that is specifically that I can find), whereas in the other records the words among and consumer are further apart.
    Try explaining that to a user!
    And there's also the issue that only the local index is used to build the index from title and authors, which drastically reduces the value because it's missing out on more unique and newer terms that might only be in emerging research topics which only have articles thus far in CDI, which are actually more likely for users to misspell and need help with.

← Previous 1 3 4 5 8 9

Feedback and Knowledge Base