Stacey van Groll

My feedback

  1. 18 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. 16 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 Manu - it should just be 'User interface' category, as this is not specific to VE model but for Primo as a product.

  3. 66 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  · 
  4. 4 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  · 
  5. 157 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  · 
  6. 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  ·  Alma » Analytics  ·  Admin →
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  7. 312 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  · 
  8. 78 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  · 

    I agree with other comments here that this should just be automatic, and we shouldn't have to ask for it (and spend valuable votes). This is a deliberately integrated item between Alma and Primo to trigger the OA icon and facet in both, and there is an expectation that Ex Libris ensures such features stay in alignment by necessary metadata.

  9. 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  · 

    A proviso please to make this configurable. We have use cases where we need users without accounts to view this information, such as for our licenses allowing access by walk-in users to our physical locations. We also make an effort to have as many Open Access and Open Educational Resources (OER) resources as possible, and we would like users here also without accounts to be able to see the information we choose to add to associated licenses.

  10. 76 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 » Analytics  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    The Ex Libris statement in response to recommendation of National Information Standards Organization (NISO) Open Discovery Initiative (ODI) states that Primo is compliant with "Report on total number of click-throughs per month." 3.3.4.2 (3) by "Primo and Summon provide this information. On Primo this is counted with the combination of the link resolver and the links in record reports, Summon provides one report for both."
    This is not correct, as is seen in this submission, as there are no analytics recorded for Link in Record reports in Primo Analytics.
    https://exlibrisgroup.com/open-discovery-initiative/

    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  11. 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  · 

    I'm sorry to have no more votes, but I heartily support this idea, especially when there is the known gap of electronic collections not married to their bibliographic record in Analytics, so therefore no way to tell the suppression aspect.

  12. 82 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  · 
  13. 103 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  · 

    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  · 
  14. 4 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  · 

    Hi Saleena - did Francois's post on the listserv not meet your needs for adjusting the display, not the source data?

  15. 4 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  · 
  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…)
    1 comment  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 
  17. 9 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  · 

    Hi - That is a defect, as there was a fix in 2020 to correct this behaviour. If you are still seeing it for specific records, then a case should be opened for those records to have it fixed.

  18. 94 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  · 

    I have submitted this great idea to the 2021 Primo enhancements process round, as follows:
    Title: Add option to generate multiple Citations at once and export to txt file
    No. #7192
    Description: The Citation feature is consistently very popular for our users, averaging 2400-2600 actions per day. Currently, it is only possible to generate Citations via the Send To Action options one record at a time, which is very manual and time-consuming. We would like to streamline this feature for our users, with the option to generate multiple citations at once and export to txt file.
    Outcome: The bulk selection feature also includes Citation, with all the styles available as configured by the site (CSL and EasyBib). The user may choose the style they'd like of the available configured styles, and generate a txt file of all of the selected records at once in that style. This Citation option is available in all places where Send To Actions export options are available, including Brief Results, with the current limit of 50 selections, in My Favorites for pinned Saved Records with no export limit, and in My Account Loans area.
    If there are performance issues and delays for the user associated with this described outcome, the file should be queued for sending by email rather than limiting the number of Citations able to be generated at once or making the user wait for an extended period.
    See Idea Exchange submission currently at 94 votes on 22.1.2021: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/36628765-generate-citation-on-multiple-pinned-items
    Please keep a watch out for it when voting starts and lend it some votes, so that we can try for Roadmap commitment!

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

    This seems like a good solution in concept, but I would not like to remove the option to have the data currently available by OTB email, which includes inventory specific information such as call number, to be replaced only by bibliographic level citation data.
    Although the Email action is much lower use in comparison to other actions for us, I don't think any new feature should completely replace an old one if any functionality will be lost that users are currently enjoying.

  19. 92 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  · 

    I believe this was added on Primo via Back Office with the New UI in 2016/2017, by adding request.date to mapping configuration.

  20. 75 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  · 

    We are seeing this issue more recently in scenarios where users are logging in, and also when they use the browser back button after routing via silent login through SSO SAML.
    I've opened a case to ask for help, if not with the best case scenario of resolving the error, then at least with improving the terrible dead end error page.
    I've been advised as follows:
    "Product management has indicated in the past that it is considered an enhancement request. The reasoning is that users are not meant to see the page unless there is an actual problem (such as a SAML misconfiguration), in which case the issue itself is addressed rather than the page.
    I understand your situation is a little different, with the page showing up occasionally even though SAML is set up properly. However, not having been able to reproduce this ourselves, I'm afraid we will need a step-by-step scenario representative of a typical use case that can replicate the issue consistently (or at least with high probability) in order to regard this as different from the other cases."
    We can replicate the issue consistently from console by opening from SSOService, which is expected to fail as single use, but there is no sign of why users are sometimes directed to end at this single use 200 and in others they are routed correctly.
    It is frustrating to receive no further support because an issue cannot be replicated every single time by 'natural' use, but can be replicated consistently by console.
    The argument for not fixing the error page to be more meaningful could also be made for any error page ie no-one is "meant" to see an error page.
    Ex Libris should fix so that we may support our users better than this when they do occur.

    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
← Previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8

Feedback and Knowledge Base