Stacey van Groll
My feedback
157 results found
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
0 votes
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
-
3 votes
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
-
6 votes
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 -
1 vote
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 itNote: 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
-
1 vote
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. -
37 votes
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
-
49 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
15 votes
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
·
-
18 votes
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
·
-
2 votes
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
·
-
172 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
109 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This is for Primo functionality so is best an idea for the Primo Idea Exchange, rather than Alma. There is already an idea for it though, to which support can be given by votes or comments:
https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/39637561-enable-public-notes-display-for-content-within-dat -
144 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This seems like it might be a defect rather than an enhancement. Can it be advised what Ex Libris determination of this is? Did they state it was an enhancement in a support case response?
-
7 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Is this asking for an enhancement to hide the Resource Sharing Service if the site has enabled Unpaywall PDF links, and the record shows both?
Generally my understanding is that this only happens when the site hasn't also enabled the Unpaywall collection for full text links, and then the API to show the Unpaywall PDF link is returning a result but the CDI collection is a little bit behind in being up to date.
The example isn't returning a result.
I am also wondering why this is referring to "scheduling of a fix" when defects should not be added to Idea Exchange, which is for enhancements. -
95 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
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
No offense intended if not, but is this a bot?
It reads strangely and some of these suggestions would not be suitable and disruptive to case management for how cases might be handled by each site (Automatic Case Creation) or reference aspects of SalesForce customers can't see (Combined Dashboard). -
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I’ve recently been troubleshooting an issue with search results on a provider platform which reminded me of this submission.
I already had concerns with it in anticipating it causing search return problems in Primo, but this analysis I conducted on the other platform solidified the issue in my mind, and I thought it useful to share here as to why I would not support this submission.The article in question:
How to make sure you’re not using data just to justify decisions you’ve already madeThis issue was that results for an exact title match were not returning the known item, unless entered with quotation marks.
I noticed that in the results which were returned, the term highlighting for matches to the search query stopped after “you’re” even though “not” also matches the query.
Given “not” is a known Boolean operator, I suspected that there might be an issue where it’s being treated incorrectly to tell the search engine to not return results.
Hence Boolean operators in capitals typically to avoid this problem. And this is the case for Primo with NOT, AND, OR.
Adding quotation marks worked to return the known item though because they force an exact phrase match, as opposed to Boolean behaviour, and overrides the defect for “not” being treated as Boolean.
And sure enough with some iterative testing it is found that skipping the word “not” when not using quotation marks resulted in the desired article being returned.• Query: How to make sure you’re not using data just to justify decisions you’ve already made – Results: 22 results and the desired article is not among them, despite being an exact match
• Query: How to make sure – Results: 783 results and the desired article is not in the first 50, but presumably it is in the results set somewhere
• Query: How to make sure you’re – Results: 27 results and the desired article is No.6
• Query: How to make sure you’re not – Results: Same as directly above, with 27 results and the desired article is No.6
• Query: How to make sure you’re not using – Results: 22 results, and the desired article is missing (repeat for additional words added). Assumption here being that the desired article is not returned because the “not” tells the search engine that the results need to contain “How to make sure you’re” but NOT include “using”
• Query: “How to make sure” – Results: 388 results and the desired article is not in the first 50, but presumably it is in the results set somewhere
• Query: “How to make sure you’re” – Results: 23 results and the desired article is No.5
• Query: “How to make sure you’re not using” – Results: 5 results and they are all the desired article. Assumption here being that quotation marks are overriding Boolean to force an exact phrase query
• Query: How to make sure you’re using – Results: 5 results and they are all the desired article -
113 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
It should be standard to add fields like this to Analytics in alignment with search indexes in Alma. Ideally at the time of development, but certainly when they are revisited at a later time when customers flag an important field which is lacking.
There are other Notes fields ETL'd to Analytics and performance issues should be controlled well by the existing Analytics character limits.
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