Stacey van Groll

My feedback

  1. 19 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    This would of course be a nice feature for Primo sites overall, not just those on VE as per the tagged category.

    I've added a lateral link by local field into main Primo for all records in Collection Discovery, mapped to a local 'Collection' facet to meet this need for a good connection point into main Primo, in returning all results in the collection.

    But it requires for a user to open a record and find the lateral link, whereas this is a very nice idea to add a button which would be much more visible.

  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…)
    0 comments  ·  Alma » Other  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  3. 56 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    I raised this with Ex Libris Senior Management in August 2020, after being told in a case response that I should have reported to the appropriate team, rather than using the 'Report to Ex Libris' function: "We would like to recommend reporting similar issues to CDI Support team in the future - according to the product where the issue is replicated."

    I used the 'Report to Ex Libris' function because I had directly correlated an issue in a CDI record in Primo from a specific Alma Electronic Collection, and all through the CDI rollout it was marketed to customers clearly and repeatedly that a significant component of the reasoning for the move of index management into Alma was for the benefit of integrated platform functionality.

    Why should we have to log into the separate SalesForce platform and go through the many dropdown arrows to submit a new case, and copy and paste a great deal of information such as record IDs, when we can directly identify a particular portfolio or collection as the root cause of an issue?
    When reporting via Alma, we have none of these pain points, all of the record information is included in the case automatically on our behalf and we have only to add some simple information such as example permalinks and issue description.
    What we have is an attempt at an integrated system of products, trying to match with SalesForce support teams that are rigidly segregated by product.

    My response was: "… it is a completely acceptable workflow for us to submit cases within Alma via 'Report to Ex Libris', when we can identify a direct correlation with the CDI collection within Alma." and "… if it is desired for us to try to determine if the issue is Alma data or CDI data, then it would be up to Ex Libris to add another dropdown option to the 'Report to Ex Libris' page, as we would be more than happy to choose CDI or Alma."

    But here we are now, almost two years later in June 2022 at time of writing, and this aspect of "CDI via Alma" integration still has no sign of being in place in Alma.

    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  4. 10 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Hi Nikki - Yes, I didn't specify VE or BO, because it's an issue for Primo as a product and is not specific to a deployment model.

    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…)
    4 comments  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Exactly.
    This is an internal discussion only because the current model is that Ex Libris must change this for all VE sites.
    And other sites may like to have these terms in their facet.

    So Ex Libris has made a problem for themselves due to ensuring that they are the only decision-makers of what all VE sites presents to their users, rather than this being a decision of your library for your users.
    The standard response to this is that they hardcoded what the majority of sites configured in Back Office rules.
    Our response is that we don't care what the majority does, and don't see why we should be limited in what we do for our users by "Majority rules".

    The very short answer is that none of the rules for controlling your own metadata in any respect (facet, display, search, addata, links, browse, sort, etc) should be hardcoded.

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

    The key issue for me with this is that VE sites must ask Ex Libris to make this change, and it is hardcoded for all VE sites.
    This is enforced homogeneity for no reason other than that it's "easier" and avoids "complexity", which is a summary of the VE model.
    This could work if VE had OTB rules but sites also had the autonomy of choice to change them, if they choose to do additional work.
    This is a parity issue, because this ability is exactly what exists in Primo Back Office for 15 years.

  6. 24 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  ·  Alma » Other  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    The display is by ISBN/ISSN/LCCN according to OLH (some of the pages don't mention LCCN, while others do).

    In such cases where the image is wrong in Alma, perhaps check to see if the identifier is correct in the bibliographic record?

    https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Product_Materials/050Alma_FAQs/Metadata_Management/Repository_Search%2C_Indexing#Does_Alma_support_material-type_icons_in_the_search_results.3F

  7. 4 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  8. 0 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Hi Ana - Apologies if I'm not misinterpreting the full scenario, but shouldn't this be covered by the Interested In Letter, triggered if you have selected to "Notify upon cancelation"?

    Notify upon cancelation - When selected, Alma sends an email to the user when the order is canceled. An email is sent only if this is selected and an email address is configured for the user. This option is clear by default. To control whether it is selected or not, use the po_ line_notify_interested_users_upon_cancelation customer parameter (Configuration Menu > Acquisitions > General > Other Settings).

    https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Product_Documentation/010Alma_Online_Help_(English)/020Acquisitions/020Purchasing/040Creating_PO_Lines/030Manually_Creating_a_PO_Line

  9. 142 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  10. 11 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  11. 461 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    5 comments  ·  Primo  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Adding a reference to the new Primo VE Idea Exchange submission for this, for the same premise of barcode search in Primo.
    Currently at 12 votes: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/38113540-barcode-search-in-primo
    If developed, it should be for all customers.

    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  12. 173 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    7 comments  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Adding a reference to the long-standing Alma Idea Exchange submission for this, for publishing barcode to Primo BO.
    Currently at 244 votes: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/12306591-include-the-item-barcode-as-part-of-the-data-publi
    If developed, it should be for all customers.

  13. 144 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    I don't see that this situation has improved much on CDI, with the stated assurance that 'Reviews' will now be used only for Book Reviews.
    It would be good if Ex Libris actually made clear how they determine this, especially if a source platform labels a resource as an article, which I find very common, or does not indicate a type at all.
    It is clearly not being done programmatically on the basis of additional data in the record, as I see many records typed as Articles in Primo when they are clearly book reviews.
    I have a case in since November 2020 for more than 126,000 records from CDI marked as Articles and yet right there in the metadata is a Subject field of "Book reviews".
    I've checked again to see that it's now over 163,000. This was advised as planned for Q1 2022 correction.
    This seems to me an ideal piece of metadata that could be used when determining differentiation of these types.

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

    Hi Keren - I think the 2 ideas are related in terms of the core problem that the Reviews resource type is meant to be specifically just Books Reviews, but actually isn't in practice. See: Primo Central Index Resource Types.
    We are currently on the 'old' UI and have a pre-filtered default search which excludes Reviews and Newspaper Articles, which is the end goal of the other idea.
    I share the desire for this resource type to be more firm and consistent but as we have that workaround in place I voted on this idea but not the other.

  14. 2 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  15. 9 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 » Primo VE  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    There is an earlier Idea Exchange submission which is marked as Completed (417 votes).
    It has caused this new submission to be needed because it was done only with this artificial limit of 10:
    https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/35043796-summary-holdings-display-primo-ve

  16. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Alma » Other  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    What a poor first experience for you!
    I haven't used it yet myself, and I'm a bit shocked it would create a blank case when an analyst hasn't even engaged.

  17. 6 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    To continue the discussion of facet values for local records, this is yet another parity issue between Primo using Back Office and Primo VE managed via Alma, and I did not realise until recently just how limited VE was.

    Our Back Office is currently set to 500 Maximum Number of Displayed Facets. We have never had a complaint on either this limit, or desire wanting even more from users, and I have never felt hindered by this high level of data as a systems librarian. I have also never noticed any performance delay with loading these values, and they appear pleasingly immediately at the time of results returned or by selection of 'More'.
    Without being allowed to see more facets in UI, there are issues such as when there are few resource types in the set. For example, if we have a facet for Library Guides this is likely to only be one records in millions. In BO, we can easily expand the facet list for the Resource Type set to size, and find the Library Guide (1). And expanding the Subject Term or Author or Language facet etc, there are the expected 500 entries shown.
    The ability to see this level of data as a feature of UI flows beyond just selecting to include or exclude a single facet in a one-time search. Users can use the facet selection to tag resources easily in bulk into My Favourites, can use the locked facet feature to do subsequent more limited searches on the set without having to perform another Advanced Search with complex search lines on specific fields to attempt to target the data (and this expects that they know what to search and are not helped by easily viewing the entries in the facet), and they can set up a Saved Search and Alert specifically by this facet to quickly re-run the query including or excluding facets, and get regularly email updates with these facet value selections.
    Why is there this limitation in VE? Is there some fundamental design flaw causing such performance issues that Ex Libris decides that this part of Primo UI must be is drastically and artificially limited to overcome it? If the argument that this is acceptable is the common one of relevance ranking, I would say that not all problems are solved by relevance ranking, such as the issue of long tail results from CDI meaning that Sorting results is not possible, and it does not remove the value of other features such as facets to help with this.

    BO:
    "Number of Top Hits for Facet Creation – This field specifies the number of top-ranked records the system will use to create the list of facet values that are displayed in the Refine My Results section of the Front End. Currently, this field is no longer configurable and is set to 2000 internally. For CDI, all records in the results set participate in facet count calculation for the top 20 values displayed for CDI.
    Maximum Number of Displayed Facets – This field specifies the maximum number of facets that can be displayed in the FE (for example, when More is invoked).
    Full Facets Cache – This field indicates whether cache is used to increase the maximum value of the Number of Top Hits for Facet Creation field to 5000. For more information on adding additional memory, see Full Facets Cache (on-premises installations only). For multi-tenant customers, this value may be set as high as 10,000."
    https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Product_Documentation/Primo/Back_Office_Guide/100Facets/020Configuring_Facets

    VE:
    "By default, facets in Primo VE return up to 20 facet values for local searches and up to 20 more facet values for CDI in blended searches. This parameter allows you to increase the maximum number of facet values to 50 for local searches only. The valid values are 20–50. CDI will continue to display a maximum of 20 values in blended searches." by discovery_facet_limit
    https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Product_Documentation/020Primo_VE/Primo_VE_(English)/120Other_Configurations/Discovery_Customer_Settings#Discovery_Facet_Limit

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

    That is a fair point, Manu, I was attempting here to scope a hopefully reasonable request to restore what we once enjoyed in PCI, working on the information provided by Ex Libris in my case stating that this will be an enhancement request for specifically a change in CDI behaviour due to the newly imposed limits.
    I did not have many scenarios in a PCI blended where the number of returned facet values for dynamic facets seemed lacking, which is very much not the case on CDI with the much lower limit. I recognise in this as well that there are real system-based limits, but I would expect for a new mandatory system that all factors should be an improvement rather than a downgrade.

    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  18. 184 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    14 comments  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    I believe this a flaw in Primo VE design. If you search for Iliad Lattimore in a Back Office site, open the FRBR group, and change the results sort to be by Relevance, then the Lattimore versions will be right at the top of the list. If you do the same thing in a Primo VE site, the results ranking is clearly changed somehow, but there is no obvious meaning to this change. It is not by relevance to the term searched, as a meaning known and expected through all of queries searched in Primo, as Lattimore is nowhere in the top 50 results.
    We have almost 90,000 FRBR groups for important works, some with over 100 titles.
    Our users need to be able to search quickly and easily for known items, and it should not require disabling FRBR to ensure relevance ranking works as expected in a discovery layer.
    It is just these sorts of unexplained and inexplicable behaviours, which completely undermine the fundamental workings of the UI, that mean that we are are not wanting to move to VE.

  19. 36 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    I agree with Manu that this is a defect if Primo is not making the data meaningful for UI.
    The normalisation rules should adjust for this, in adjusting the date to cover the range.
    For example, if you check the PNX of a record with 199-, it can be seen to be adjusted to 1990 for sort and search, while it will display as 199- per the source record permitted cataloguing.
    As another example with 260 ##$a[Vancouver :$bDuthie Books,$c199-?-1994], the range will be <startdate>19900101</startdate> <enddate>19941231</enddate>

  20. 35 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  ·  Alma » Analytics  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    If this was developed, please allow for a configuration option to choose which reports to send or not send if empty, as sometimes it is the purpose of the report.
    This could be by the Analytics Object, such as a checkbox during configuration in Alma, to check the box to not send if empty.

← Previous 1 3 4 5 8 9

Feedback and Knowledge Base