Stacey van Groll
My feedback
-
232 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
6 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
32 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I have just had one of our staff ask after this, as it is very unnecessarily time-consuming to have to click in and out of the email address entries repeatedly just to see the key field of Description.
I completely agree with the submission in not wanting to create user accounts for this to try to solve what seems to be a very simple fix to add the option to the cog icon display to allow users to display the Description if they want to.Stacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I asked about this in a case and was advised that the VE files are examples only and all Primo customers (VE and BO) must open a case to request updated files. This is now indicated in the VE documentation with: "Since this information is updated per customer requests, please contact support to get an updated list for your institution.".
Presumably, if you were considering moving from BO to VE and wanted to compare the files as part of your transition project, you could ask for both files in the case and to be advised if they were at parity.
The last file I asked for and received for our BO site included the ranking eg Very High, Very Low etc. -
331 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This is the top voted submission for the Alma Idea Exchange at 329 votes.
Ex Libris states this as the preamble statement for this forum: "We would love to be able to respond to every idea that is submitted, but this is not feasible. We are, however, committed to responding to the most popular ideas—those that have received the most points."
Despite this stated commitment, there is no response from Ex Libris in the 5 1/2 years since the submission was added.
If there are no plans to deliver this functionality, then the idea should be Closed so everyone knows that Ex Libris will not fulfill it, and gets their votes back, and perhaps consider aiming for certain roadmap commitment via the NERS process.An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
As mentioned by others, can Ex Libris please merge these two submissions into one, so that we can see a true picture of the desire for this functionality and don't split our votes?
Right now there are 85 votes on one and 78 on another, putting this underlying idea at 163 votes. From a quick skim of the Top ideas, this would put it in the Top 30.
https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/34532095-access-detailed-error-reports-for-all-jobs
https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/15192714-improve-alma-job-reports-for-failed-recordAn error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
As mentioned by others, can Ex Libris please merge these two submissions into one, so that we can see a true picture of the desire for this functionality and don't split our votes?
Right now there are 85 votes on one and 78 on another, putting this underlying idea at 163 votes. From a quick skim of the Top ideas, this would put it in the Top 30.
https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/34532095-access-detailed-error-reports-for-all-jobs
https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/15192714-improve-alma-job-reports-for-failed-recordStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
223 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
149 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
The set of 3 ideas which would drastically improve irrelevant and meaningless CDI results, by restoring and adding search tools which empower our users to target their search and their results, and and fixing the design decisions which make these tools very necessary:
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This feature is even more important with CDI.
I have complaints because users are getting results returned on the basis of one of their terms being only in the reference list in a URL of a citation.
In sum, completely irrelevant to their query, as nowhere else in the record metadata or the true full text of the work.
If you could force Primo (actually CDI) to only return results for your search terms when in close proximity, this would drastically improve this currently very poor situation.An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I've submitted this for Primo NERS 2020.
Title: Add a proximity search operator
Request ID: 6682
Description: A proximity operator allows a researcher to specify that their search terms are present in records within a specified number of words from each other.
Summon already incorporates this feature, performed by enclosing search terms in quotation marks and using tilde and the number distance, for example "yeast bread"~10 finds material where "yeast" and "bread" appear within 10 words of each other.
See https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Summon/Product_Documentation/Searching_in_The_Summon_Service/Search_Features/Summon%3A_Boolean%2C_Phrase%2C_Wildcard_and_Proximity_Searching#proximity
Primo’s search algorithm incorporates an out-of-the-box assignment of higher ranking to records where search terms are closer together, but a proximity search operator gives a researcher explicitly more control over precise targeting of their search, which would also help to build greater understanding and confidence that the results will meet their needs and aren’t just from a mysterious “black box”.
With CDI coming soon to Primo, along with the massive increase in records, this trust building will be even more important to support researchers with tools to help sift through billions of results.
This tool should primarily support PNX and equivalent record metadata (both Primo via Back Office and Primo VE deployment models), but ideally would also incorporate standard existing extensions to remote data where available, including table of contents, abstracts, and full text.
See Idea Exchange submission: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/19308214-proximity-search-operator-for-fulltext-search-in-pStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I would love to see this in Primo, for full text and for record metadata, which are both available in Summon.
Our site was on Summon when I was studying myself and I constantly used this functionality for my research and assignments, as a key strategy to improve ranking of results for several keywords.
It is a vital tool for topic searches for beginner and more advanced researchers alike, to help sift through the hundreds of millions of results, by improved targeting of results and moving them into prominent position. -
250 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
The set of 3 ideas which would drastically improve irrelevant and meaningless CDI results, by restoring and adding search tools which empower our users to target their search and their results, and and fixing the design decisions which make these tools very necessary:
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Some user-focused reasons to vote:
* Do you get queries from confused users who have searched in specific fields like Subject, Title, and Author, and then get results that have no sign of their search terms in those fields?
* Do your users wonder why they don’t see features like lateral links to find more records in these results, and don’t get the expected data they searched also exported to EndNote?Stacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
676 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
The set of 3 ideas which would drastically improve irrelevant and meaningless CDI results, by restoring and adding search tools which empower our users to target their search and their results, and and fixing the design decisions which make these tools very necessary:
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
A user story showing one of the issues with this design:
I am a user interested in new resources the exact terms “student consult”, and I’m pleased to find that my Library offers a feature of a weekly Saved Search Alert email, as I’m time poor.
The next week, I get a saved search alert email for a single new item returned by my query, and I’m excited to explore this resource that my Library has sent to me.
I click on the link to navigate to the record, but I’m surprised to see that the record doesn’t appear to have my exact terms, with nothing in the record matching this.
I’m confused, and so I navigate to the full text, and Ctrl-F to search for my terms, but I don’t get any hits on “student consult”.
I change my search to just “student”, and then I finally see that the full text includes text of: "Ask students to consult the literature…"
I am extremely annoyed, because I explicitly set up a search query exactly for “student consult” as I know this is what quotation marks should do to target queries, and I feel like my institution’s library has wasted my time.Per Ex Libris documentation, this outcome is expected, because stop words are not indexed in the full text and quotation marks do not present expansion.
So, “student” is expanded to “students” and the presence of “to” in the full text is ignored, meaning that “student consult” matches to “students to consult”.
Ex Libris recognises this is a problem in the OLH ie “On the downside, they contribute to a longer tail of results that may be less or not relevant to the users’ intentions.”
But they also think that this is acceptable: “As full text matches are ranked far lower than metadata matches, material with the exact phrase in the metadata will almost always outrank them in the result list. However, full text matches can become important if there are no or very few results with the exact phrase in the metadata, and it can lead to other relevant findings.”
The assumptions that Ex Libris is making here, all of which are false:
• getting no results or few results is always a bad thing, which must be avoided at all costs
• users will not want to sort their results
• users will not want to use any facets
• users are only searching in UI manually every time, and not setting up saved search alerts
In sum, it is assumed that the only way Primo is being used is by a search, with relevance ranking, and that users only care about the top results in Primo, and therefore CDI design is 'working as expected'.
“Some” users are served by this, and perhaps you could argue even the majority, but the needs of experienced researchers are ignored and apparently considered unimportant.
Primo should be sophisticated enough to support the needs of all users.
It is a regression and downgrade in the service offered by our Library.An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Some user-focused reasons to vote:
* Do you get complaints about the deluge of irrelevant results?
* Would you like your experienced researchers to be able to find exactly what they need by their targeted query, with the use of Boolean operators, quotation marks, and Advanced Search?
* Would you like these users to be able to sort their results for review other than by relevance (not possible with the long tail), and take full advantage of features like Saved Search Alerts?Stacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
21 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
There is still a preferred record display by cascade of preference by delivery category in Primo managed via Back Office. This will result in failure to display the fields from the non-preferred records when the field is duplicated, for example if the two records have a description field, then only the description from the preferred record displays.
It seems the difference with Primo VE is the dynamic nature of the deduplication, in this 'first record in the result list' aspect, as VE deduplicates at the point of search rather than the point of index, and therefore preferences to match the user query as primary.
I'd still really love to see an example of this variation in action, if you feel willing to provide one.An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Hi Floriane - can you provide an example, as I'm not sure what you mean for VE?
-
61 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This is standard configuration. Can you not see this in your site?
I'll attach a screenshot from a VE site. -
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Could more detail be provided? If you don't want to show a resource recommender entry, why not just remove it from the configuration?
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I agree with you that this would be a very useful enhancement. Until it's added as you suggest, there is potentially a workaround via the Events (being deprecated in Dec 2021) / System Events (replacement for Events) subject area. This has an Event type 9110 of Successful login, with a Creator of the Primary ID of the user. You could build this report first, and then use it to filter another report in the Users area by the Primary ID. Obviously more timeconsuming to set up than the Last Login simply being in the Users area, but at least it's something for right now. Be aware that the 1 hour timeout of Alma can trigger additional logins which you may not expect, depending on your authentication method ie you might find data of the same staff member repeatedly logging in throughout the day in a strangely consistent manner, but if you look at the Event Date and Time field, you are likely to set that it's in increments of the 1 hour timeout.
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This should not be limited to Primo VE, but recorded for all Primo customers.
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I can't replicate this and I believe therefore it is a bug to be reported in SalesForce, rather than an enhancement. There have also been issues with this is the past, fixed in prior releases, lending to my thought of this being a defect even more.
-
1 voteStacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
1 voteStacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
5 votes
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
·
-
1 vote
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.
I'm not an expert in authorities nor music works, but I think many of these UI problems are only in Primo VE, and not Primo (managed via Back Office)
* Record counts: Primo VE presents "20+ records", where Primo display the accurate record count eg 560 records (bar minor FRBR/Dedup variations)
* Records returned: Primo VE returns hits outside the author heading such as 600, where Primo presents from the author heading, in an author Browse Search, which I believe covers the left-anchored aspect also
* References: I'm not seeing any sign that Primo VE supports See or See Also references in Browse Search. Primo supports See but not See Also references in Browse Search
* Fields: I won't try to dive into all the subfields mentioned, but Primo sites have the ability to adjust the Browse rules as they see fit, such as if there is a subfield which they'd like to add to Browse Search
Harvard has a lovely Browse Search on Primo via Back Office, labelled in main menu as 'Starts with / Browse': https://hollis.harvard.edu/primo-explore/browse?vid=HVD2&browseQuery=bizet,%20georges&browseScope=author&innerPnxIndex=-1&numOfUsedTerms=-1&fn=BrowseSearch