Skip to content

Stacey van Groll

My feedback

150 results found

  1. 6 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    I have just written up an idea for the same thing and only then thought to see if someone else had already submitted! Thanks!

    I also thought Description would be useful for our particular use case, but preference Barcode overall.

    Given I took the time to write it up, I'll add the details in full in the event it proves useful to reinforce the suggestion, and I'll also attach my screenshot example for our use case of accidental deletion of two items instead of one and wanting to Restore. The Customize View display flows through to the excel export.

    ----------

    Please add Barcode and Description to the Customize View display options in Manage Deleted Repository

    Adding the Barcode and Description to the Customize View option display in Resources > Advanced Tools > Manage Deleted Repository would be very useful for troubleshooting and the Restore workflow for multiple copies of the same title withdrawn on the same day, particularly for the Physical Items option.
    While most of the information fields available already focuses on title level information, there is a precedence for item level information such as Item call number, Permanent Location, and Copy ID (but we don’t actively use Copy ID and do use Barcode).
    If only one field was decided to be added of the two suggested of Barcode and Description, the preference would be for Barcode.
    Please see the screenshot attached example where it is impossible to differentiate between the two items deleted, hindering the ability to effectively move forward to restore the one which was mistakenly deleted.
    ----------

  2. 24 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    No.1 sounds like a defect rather than an idea for product enhancement.

  3. 93 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  4. 3 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 » Other  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    I'm a bit confused between the features in play. Could an example be provided?

  5. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Rialto » Ordering  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Thank you for your suggestion. The Rialto team is reviewing this idea to determine how it might fit into our future plans. We cannot provide a timeline for these ideas, but be sure to check back often and vote for the ideas you support to receive status and comment updates.

    Best,

    Heidi Whitehead

    Rialto Product Manager

    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  6. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Alma » Analytics  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  7. 75 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 →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    I have concerns that this suggested change would do more harm than good, given the known and observed situation of many CDI records only containing the physical identifiers. I believe a better option is to push Ex Libris to improve their metadata, which would require cooperation with providers providing this data for the index also.

  8. 3 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    I'm sorry that I don't understand what this means.
    Are you suggesting that only 1 request can be submitted and then all other patrons will try to place a request and get a message of being denied?
    Or that they wouldn't see the option to place a request at all in the discovery environment?
    Why are requests being cancelled for lack of copies? Do you mean your staff cancel them manually, as otherwise they would just be pending not yet active until a copy is returned?
    I'm not sure how that would be less confusing to a patron to have to know that if the availability information is Requests: 1 that this means they can't place a request themselves.
    Could it be explained a bit more?

  9. 86 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  10. 32 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 →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    I have too few votes available to devote to this and we don’t actually use course information at our site, but am commenting support for the underlying premise of expectation of customer autonomy over what local data is searchable in their own discovery environment for their own records.
    This is a logical and reasonable baseline standard, is available to customers using Primo managed by Back Office, and Ex Libris should have prioritised maintaining the option of choice when developing Primo VE, rather than deciding just to hardcode their chosen OTB.

  11. 4 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  12. 3 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  ·  Alma » Analytics  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    I wonder if the existing Originating System field will meet this need? OTB this will display as Unknown but can be configured to display meaningful information, including by Import Profile. https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Product_Documentation/010Alma_Online_Help_(English)/080Analytics/Alma_Analytics_Subject_Areas/Titles

  13. 0 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    I suggest to post this instead to the dedicated forum for collections content, being the Content Idea Exchange: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/574345-content

  14. 3 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    I suggest to post this instead to the dedicated forum for collections content, being the Content Idea Exchange: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/574345-content

  15. 6 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  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    My prior comment was misguided due to Ex Libris having codes for this display in Primo VE as added from Primo BO (and displayed there in BO as configured), but despite this they do not show them in Primo VE. I was also misinformed originally in my case on this topic, being advised that the labels would only appear after transition to VE, rather than only during enablement.
    They advise this is by design per usability studies on the link resolver that not all the labels are understandable with users tested expressing confusion of the meaning of different link resolver statuses. Therefore they decided to remove them for Primo VE display.
    However, this completely ignores the possibility for a library to normalise these terms ourselves, as should be our right to decide, and in Primo BO we have made them the same for consistency and clear signposting to a patron as to the nature of the link action.
    Instead it's just decided for everyone to take it away completely in VE (and yet leave the codes behind in configuration).
    Given this supposed better design, I've also queried why there is still a prepend for Link in Record when presumably the same premise of confusion would reside there. In sum, the supposedly better design isn't even consistently applied. Hopefully this doesn't result in them just doubling down and extending this poor decision to taking that away as well.
    Very disappointing and concerning decision-making from Ex Libris.

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

    There is Code of fulldisplay.Access_content_in with Description option such as:
    View online: {{provider}}

    This would seem to lead to the desired outcome if changing the Description accordingly in your environment per the example screenshot:
    Click here for access: ProQuest Central

  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  ·  Alma » Link Resolver  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Can I ask that you’re aware of the additional links which are still there but not so prominent as the initial electronic access link?

    This is my documentation in this area:

    • View @ x Library - when the article exists electronically, as advised to Google Scholar by the weekly Alma publishing job
    • Get @ x Library - when x Library Links are set up, but we did not send the title in our weekly Alma publishing ie when Google has no information that the article exists electronically. These are a bit hidden: Click on the little >> to show 'Get @ x Library, and << to hide it

    Note: Sometimes our library links will be even more hidden under All x versions. This is because Google prioritises by its own algorithm to promote the most stable and direct link, such as a JSTOR PDF, which may trump the Alma Link Resolver via OpenURL call to the services page

  17. 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 →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Reasoning for logged in only included concern for ability for the user to add any email address for the export file to be sent and no sender information sent to know their identify, per the existing email functionality. With files upwards of 16 MB and more, this could be used quite maliciously without any verification of the sender at all, including clogging up CRM systems with massive files in quick succession and inability to prevent this other than strategies like blocking the Primo From address or setting rules to send to spam or disabling the feature completely.
    There are also system performance impacts to consider with bulk sendings.

  18. 37 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  ·  Alma » Analytics  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    I think a mistake is made and this submission should be deleted and redone, lest the idea is wasted as not attracting votes. The title is the submitter email: laura.macneil@ed.ac.uk

  19. 49 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  20. 15 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Thank you for your suggestion. The Rialto team is reviewing this idea to determine how it might fit into our future plans. We cannot provide a timeline for these ideas, but be sure to check back often and vote for the ideas you support to receive status and comment updates.

    Best,

    Heidi Whitehead

    Rialto Product Manager

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

Feedback and Knowledge Base