Stacey van Groll

My feedback

  1. 74 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    M Schewender - A few items were pushed back for 2020. We're looking forward to seeing the new Roadmap for 2021 in January.

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

    I also support more options in this area.
    It was quite a loss of personalisation on the New UI, whereas the Classic UI gave the configuration option to set number of results per page (we had 20), and then users could set themselves in their My Account settings to 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50.
    We get comments from users pretty often that they hate having to click Load More Results constantly, and that 10 is much too few a number.
    There is the real performance issue though that the New UI slows down so considerably once there are a few hundred results on screen, so loading more endlessly may not be a good solution (unless this performance can be improved of course).
    The only way to jump pages now is by changing the offset in the URL, but there is a limit of 2,000 in a blended search, and it will sometimes error out.
    We had a client query just last week asking after any options in this area, because they had painstakingly worked through a results set up to Page 80, and then accidentally clicked a feature which reset the search back to Page 1. It is extremely limiting that the pagination widget only allows for advance 5 pages from Page 1, but then only 2 pages once you're past page 1.

    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  2. 89 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  3. 184 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  4. 67 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Alma » Other  ·  Admin →
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  5. 27 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    I'm taking back my own votes from this, as per the Oct/Nov/Dec 2020 updates that
    "In collaboration with the Community Zone Management Group, it will not be possible to add or edit the following fields in the Community Zone by members of the community:
    856 subfield u
    All 9xx fields excluding 906, 999 and 920
    These fields will NOT be saved even if edited/added, as a new Normalization Rule, applicable only in the CZ, will prevent this.
    A cleanup of these fields from Community Zone records will follow."
    I've prompted Ex Libris on the listserv on 18.11.2020 to close this entry as completed given almost full matching to the stated idea, so feel free to withdraw your own votes if you agree.

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

    Note: Ex Libris developed local extensions as their solution to this problem, but they are not mandatory, so individuals may still freely add local fields to shared CZ records.

    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  6. 262 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  7. 51 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  8. 2 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Hi Sonja,
    I have a case now with a fix coming in Q2 2021 which may solve this?
    It's a different starting point scenario because our relink issue came up due to deleting and resurrecting a bib and being unable to relink the POL after that.
    But the fix description sounds like it might be more comprehensive?
    You can check out the published case here 00868204, but here is the fix description which I asked for:
    "yes, the problem happens in the following scenario:
    - when you cancel a PO Line with "Childless bib action = Delete bibliographic records"
    - and then restoring the bib record and reviving the PO Line.
    The cancel action has removed the bib record from the PO Line and currently, the Relink only knows how to update the existing bib record in a PO Line but fails if there is no bib record linked to the PO Line at this moment.
    We will fix the Relink action so that it will also work if there is no bib record linked to the PO Line at this moment."

  9. 304 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Your point is a good one, Francois, regarding the sometimes extensive delays in vendor fixes. This is exactly a reason why this design must be changed, to give the option of removal.
    We are more than willing to work collaboratively with Ex Libris to fix their index, by opening SalesForce cases. Our evidence of our commitment to this is hundreds of cases open right now.
    But I also have a case in for CRL Catalog, and it has been open for 2 months with no response. We should not be forced to present these collections to our users in the interim.
    On PCI, we could simply remove these collections from our environment, while we awaited for a fix, with no impact on our users. Now, we must simply just wait for Ex Libris, with literally no option other than removing our own full text holdings, which is of course not an option.
    There is also the factor of course that sometimes there may be nothing wrong in some opinions with the collection at all, but we simply don't want it.
    This should be our choice, for our environment, for our users.

    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  10. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    It's very manual, record by record, but you can do this by norm rule:
    https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Knowledge_Articles/Turn_Off_Dedup_and_FRBR_in_Primo

  11. 2 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Alma » Other  ·  Admin →
    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  12. 11 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  13. 23 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Primo » Analytics  ·  Admin →
    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  14. 49 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Primo » Analytics  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    It's disappointing that this idea has so few votes when Evidence-Based Practice is such a focus, and this is vital data on user engagement with different types of formats ie electronic vs physical.
    I have long contemplated putting in a submission for yet another gap of no actions recorded in Primo Analytics for View It services clicks.
    These are partially recorded in Alma Analytics for Link Resolver, but completely missing for any Link in Record links for either remote PCI/CDI or external local sources. So few votes here makes me think I shouldn't bother,but at the same time it amazes me that this gap hasn't been filled already as standard.

    Edit: I'll take the plunge, here's an idea for the View It clicks
    Primo Analytics - Add Actions for clicks on View It links, for both Link in Record and Link Resolver
    https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/41480614-primo-analytics-add-actions-to-be-recorded-for-c

    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  15. 83 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    We are very pleased that the use case expressed here was delivered in the September 2020 Release.

  16. 8 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Hi Nancy,

    I agree that this would be a great improvement, which should have parity for both Primo VE and Primo customers on Back Office.

    I have figured out a workflow to get more of the results quickly, which only takes a few minutes for a set of 150, which may be useful to you:
    * Select the checkbox at the top of the screen and then Choose Top 50
    * Click on the Pin icon and add a new Label for the set to distinguish it, eg 2020.3.19 Export
    * Use the pagination widget (bottom left) by middle circle to go to Page 6, which will refresh the top of the results set to start at No.51
    * Use the Load More Results button 4 times to load 50 more results to screen ie 50-100
    * Return to top and select the top checkbox to select all 50 results on screen
    * Click on the Pin icon and select the 2020.3.19 Export label
    * Repeat once more for No.100-150
    * Go to My Favourites > Saved Items
    * Choose the label of 2020.3.19 Export to filter the list of Saved Items
    * Click on the checkbox at the top of the list
    * The ellipsis icon will go from greyed out to clickable - Note: Be very careful not to select the Unpin icon right beside it, as this will immediately unpin all of the items with no warning and the process would need to be repeated
    * Select the chosen export option available, such as Email, Print, Export RIS, or Export Excel

  17. 521 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)

    Thank you for suggesting this idea, the direction is to enable customers to show more links and offer some configuration options to set preferences.

    Note that this is not something that we can do in the near future since it is a complex change.

    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  18. 136 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    There's no label just for 'Primo', Lisbeth, as this enhancement channel was designed before Primo VE existed. It applies to all flavours of Primo regardless of deployment model. My impression is that it only needs a Primo VE tag if Primo on Back Office already has the functionality, but Primo VE does not. I have seen incorrect entries for this though, as someone on a Primo VE site might not know that a idea isn't possible in Back Office either.

    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  19. 323 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    13 comments  ·  Alma » Other  ·  Admin →
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  20. 31 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Have you considered use of the category tree? I understand completely if the submission is only for Subject headings, as would be found in the Subject facet in main Primo, but perhaps you might not be aware of the option to add a category tree. We use this for a curated list of subject categories and then have a second tier for 'Key Resources', as many other commenters have described as being desirable. This makes for a different search experience to main Primo, as offering our users a list designed just for a focus area for our university with databases chosen by the expert liaison librarian supporting that areas, which helps also to not just replicate the Primo search in two different places, as each offers a distinct feature.

← Previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8

Feedback and Knowledge Base