Stacey van Groll
My feedback
175 results found
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Hi - This might be better asked as a question on the Alma listserv. You can subscribe here: https://exlibrisusers.org/postorius/lists/alma.exlibrisusers.org/
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Have you tried to set the values to display to 0? I have done this in the NDE UI and it is working well to have the facet values collapsed as expected.
Our setup, while noting that we don't use the Location code facet:
Availability 5
Resource type 3
Creation Date 1
New Records 0
Library 0
Advisory statement 0
Digital Collection 0
UQ school, centre or institute 0
Topic 0
Creator 0
Language 0
Journal Title 0
Collection 0
Access 0
UQ Library source 0 -
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I suggest to add this suggestion to the Primo Idea Exchange, for enhancing the patron experience in the Primo UI.
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I support this submission for NLS to search local fields, plus would take it further to the “any” index overall.
Currently NLS only searches: ISSN, ISBN, MMS_ID, OCLC, Author, Title, Description, General, Table of Contents, noting that the General index is only: 260 a,b / 264 a,b / 502 * / 508 * / 518 * / 521 * / 534 * / 586 * / 024 2,4,a,z / 027 * / 028 a / 245 h / 880-260 b 880-264 b
So in addition to local fields not being searched, NLS is also not documented to search several additional OTB fields in Primo VE local records which all would be included in the “any” index: Date of Publication, Full Text, End Date, Genre, Language, MESH, NDC, Place, Series, Start Date, Subject.
Without this aspect, our patrons will easily be misled into thinking that they are searching all our available resources, and will miss out on discovering relevant results.
There is also the issue of reduction in trust in our discovery layer environment if patrons do identify that they are not seeing all results in NLS versus Primo search otherwise, with likelihood of both complaints being received and inconvenience with patron time being wasted in having to repeat searches multiple times, undermining the value of NLS overall.Stacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
234 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Noting that unfortunately the related submission in the 2026 Primo Enhancement cycle did not perform well enough to be successful. For reference, this is a history of related submissions across several cycles:
• 2026: PENH-I-28465 with 1260 votes (ranked 18 of 71 in 1st round) and 2958 votes (ranked 13 of 15 in 2nd round, with 4.39% of the votes ), as a merge of PENH-I-28465 Enhance View It options for Link in Record services and PENH-I-28471 Display electronic collection public and authentication notes for link-in-record links the same as for portfolio (link resolver) links, and with note of advised potential solution by CDI PM scoped for 80 Development Points
• 2025: PENH-I-28341 with 691 votes (ranked 35 of 89): Enable Public Notes display for content within Database-type collections
• 2024: #8897 moved from Primo to the CDI Enhancements Trial (CDIENH-l-29) with 6484 votes by 107 sites (ranked 3 of 10): Enhance View It display options for Link in Record services
• 2024: #8960 kept with Primo ballot with 514 votes by 26 sites (ranked 35 of 98): Enable Public Notes display for content within Database-type collections
• 2023: #8261 with 157 votes by 15 sites (ranked 58 of 119): Enable Public Notes display for content within Database-type collections (VE/BO)
• 2022: #7852 with 95 votes by 12 sites (ranked 77 of 108): Enable Public Notes display for content within Link in Record collections (VE/BO)An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This request has been submitted to NERS/CERV several times previously, but has been unsuccessful due to insufficient votes and complexity when sufficiently voted to reach scoping.
The IGeLU Primo WG and ELUNA Primo WG have been advocating consistently on this point to PM, with the support also of the joint Content WG.
We have recently had positive information that it has a viable solution from CDI PM, from CDI Enhancement Trial follow up discussions, and it will be on the ballot again with the following note added on the background and solution information.
Look out for PENH-I-28465 on the upcoming Primo 2026 Enhancements ballot (as a merge of PENH-I-28465 and PENH-I-28471), and give it your votes!
----------
"Note from IGeLU Primo WG and ELUNA Primo WG:
Previously submitted as #8897 for Primo 2024 Enhancements, and included in the 2024 CDI Enhancements Trial as CDIENH-l-29. No.3 ranked overall, but ultimately unsuccessful as part of the trial with cross-product scoping complexities
January 2026: CDI PM has encouraged resubmission given popularity of the enhancement and with a newly considered path forward involving both Primo and CDI with the vast majority of the work in Primo, with the following information: "At a high level, the solution would likely mean returning the Alma collectionID or DBID during the searchAPI response/PNX. Doing so would allow Primo VE to query Alma for and then display the public note, license info, and GES. This could cover all 4 bullets in the original Idea.""
----------An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I see the idea has been updated to delete the Closed status. If Ex Libris is watching flow-on correspondence here, it would be appreciated if there would be more transparency in manner of communication. This is easily done by leaving the mistake visible and adding another status over it, which has been done in other ideas such as in the Content forum. This is vastly preferable than hiding something and pretending it never happened, with the resulting impression of not being open and trustworthy.
Stacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
282 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
41 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
61 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
224 votes
Hello,
We will reach out to the provider, and ask for the metadata for this collection.
Thanks,
Tamar Ganor
Content Product Manager
Stacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Could it be shared if a case has been opened for this and confirmed to be an enhancement?
I ask because it is typically unexpected (aka a defect) to present an actionable element in UI which has no outcome of change upon being interacted with. -
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This is possible by setting apply_direct_linking_settings_in_full_record to true under Configuration Menu > Discovery > Other > Customer Settings
-
11 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
In case you haven't seen it, there is the configuration area to differ this for Primo in the Physical Item Sort Routines configuration by the Resource Management Get It results option.
-
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I suggest to test out the job to see if it works for the desired scenario, such as records in an existing FRBR group with rule change so that they will regroup and still be in FRBR groups but different ones, such as by choosing to run job with Prevent FRBR of No. I haven't tested that exact scenario, but you may find outcome with testing that it is a single job instance.
I have used it with scenarios like this though: Records are in a FRBR group and not in a DEDUP group. Rules are changed so that records will be in a DEDUP group. Test utility for an example tested shows message for DEDUP test of “Keys Match. Records are not connected in DB”. Run job with Prevent DEDUP No and FRBR blank. Outcome is that the records are now in a DEDUP group instead of a FRBR group.An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
There is the "Prevent FRBR and/or Dedup in Discovery" job.
The name is counterintuitive, but it offers both Yes and No options, with description: "Enables/disables the FRBR and/or Dedup processes on a set of bibliographic records."
Ex Libris might get upset if trying to run across all of your records at once, as perhaps might cause performance issues, but it states it's intended purpose of a set of records, so you could target to specific areas and work through them. -
2 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
20 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This is a nice change to the NDE UI, as the thumbnails display in Database Search there.
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
It is possible to change the pickup location without cancelling the hold, but it requires manual intervention.
This is because if a pickup location is changed when an item is on the holdshelf already there is very little indication in Alma. Alma has no notice mechanism to advise staff of any need to take action. Ex Libris has responded to a Support case in this area to advise this is expected by design. The only visible place is via Active Hold Shelf > and then noticing that the Pickup Location is different from the ‘Currently at...’ location eg the item is on the CEN Active Hold Shelf and yet the Pickup Location is HML
As such, these are the steps I’ve provided to our staff:
Step 1: Search item or request > click on Requests (1) to access the Request Queue > … > Edit > Change Pickup Location > Submit
Step 2: Phone or email the staff at the Library for the original pickup location to request that they retrieve the item from the holdshelf, Scan In to put the item In Transit, and put in the post
Step 3: When the item is received in the post in the new pickup location, the item must be Scanned In to clear the In Transit request, to issue the patron with a new email notice for pickup (re-starting the holdshelf period), and place the item on the holdshelf -
2 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
22 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I see the issue with the Main Menu link for the Purchase Request form showing a message that the form is not available as soon as "Hide service Purchase Request" in toggle to enabled in Display Logic Rules.
We use this set up of GES and DLR which may be helpful and avoids this issue while looking like it might meet your conditions (while noting that we use a Resource Sharing broker rather than Rapido):
General Electronic Service
HidePRifJourorArt with Default = false
True when rft.genre = article, journal, bookitem (for chapters), conference, issue, preprint, proceeding, report, unknown, dissertation, documentDisplay Logic Rules in cascade order
1. Hide service Purchase Request with Ownership by the institution = true
2. Hide service Purchase Request if exists service General Electronic Service with Service = HidePRifJourorArt
3. Hide service General Electronic Service with Service = HidePRifJourorArt
I put in a case for this as well as providing a dozen detailed examples to Primo Product Management (10616065).
There is subsequently a Known Issues Portal entry 000324186, and a improvement advised to be coming in the November 2026 Release:
"Natural Language Search Boolean query generation using OR instead of AND combination".
"When using Natural Language Search, the system may generate broad Boolean queries that prioritize the OR operator, even when the user's search includes multiple concepts that require the AND operator. This behavior can result in an excessively large number of search results that do not accurately reflect the intended search constraints. Expected behavior is for the search to correctly interpret and apply AND logic to ensure more precise and relevant results. This issue occurs when the natural language processing incorrectly translates complex user queries into Boolean search strings."