Stacey van Groll
My feedback
168 results found
-
11 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
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
·
-
51 votes
Hello,
We will check with Factiva and review if technically we can add the CDI fields.
Kind regards,
Tamar Ganor
Content Product Manager
Stacey 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 -
231 votes
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
·
-
1 vote
Hello,
We will reach out to Lived Places Publishing, and ask for the metadata for this collection.
Thanks,
Tamar Ganor
Content Product Manager
Stacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
74 votes
-
21 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I know this won't answer your idea completely but this documentation might be helpful for Ex Libris AI metadata indications:
https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Content/Knowledge_Articles/Alma/Knowledge_Articles/AI_Bibliographic_Records_Enrichment -
200 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
18 votes
Hello,
This request has been selected as part of the 2026 CERV votes.
We will reach out to the content provider, and ask for the metadata for this collection.
Kind regards,
Tamar Ganor
Content Product Manager
Stacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This cross-library visibility is available without location/desk selection under Fulfillment > Resource Requests > Monitor Requests & Item Processes > Workflow step: Pickup From Shelf
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This is a CDI record from the Rapido Global Titles Index, and I believe you might be referring to placing resource sharing requests rather than a patron physical item request as I don't see a sign of physical holdings? It seems problematic to have a record like this with some many identifiers. I wonder if you have queried the situation in a Support case and had it confirmed that an enhancement request is the best path forward?
-
3 votesStacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
39 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Normally this would be a concern given the Idea Exchange is not for defects per both the FAQ and the Posting Guidelines, for good reason as this is a dangerous road to go down for suggesting product development "ideas" to shift from feature improvements and novel suggestions to simply fixing the product.
But I notice that the documentation linked has this statement, and it is not common Ex Libris practice to document a document, only a 'by design' aspect: "Records suppressed from discovery are not exported with any export action (such as Export to Excel, Print, and Email)."
This suggests that they are treating it as an enhancement rather than a defect.
-
1 voteStacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
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.