Stacey van Groll

My feedback

  1. 13 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  · 
  2. 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  · 
  3. 6 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  · 

    Hi - That is a defect, as there was a fix in 2020 to correct this behaviour. If you are still seeing it for specific records, then a case should be opened for those records to have it fixed.

  4. 98 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 have submitted this great idea to the 2021 Primo enhancements process round, as follows:
    Title: Add option to generate multiple Citations at once and export to txt file
    No. #7192
    Description: The Citation feature is consistently very popular for our users, averaging 2400-2600 actions per day. Currently, it is only possible to generate Citations via the Send To Action options one record at a time, which is very manual and time-consuming. We would like to streamline this feature for our users, with the option to generate multiple citations at once and export to txt file.
    Outcome: The bulk selection feature also includes Citation, with all the styles available as configured by the site (CSL and EasyBib). The user may choose the style they'd like of the available configured styles, and generate a txt file of all of the selected records at once in that style. This Citation option is available in all places where Send To Actions export options are available, including Brief Results, with the current limit of 50 selections, in My Favorites for pinned Saved Records with no export limit, and in My Account Loans area.
    If there are performance issues and delays for the user associated with this described outcome, the file should be queued for sending by email rather than limiting the number of Citations able to be generated at once or making the user wait for an extended period.
    See Idea Exchange submission currently at 94 votes on 22.1.2021: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/36628765-generate-citation-on-multiple-pinned-items
    Please keep a watch out for it when voting starts and lend it some votes, so that we can try for Roadmap commitment!

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

    This seems like a good solution in concept, but I would not like to remove the option to have the data currently available by OTB email, which includes inventory specific information such as call number, to be replaced only by bibliographic level citation data.
    Although the Email action is much lower use in comparison to other actions for us, I don't think any new feature should completely replace an old one if any functionality will be lost that users are currently enjoying.

  5. 92 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 believe this was added on Primo via Back Office with the New UI in 2016/2017, by adding request.date to mapping configuration.

  6. 76 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  · 

    We are seeing this issue more recently in scenarios where users are logging in, and also when they use the browser back button after routing via silent login through SSO SAML.
    I've opened a case to ask for help, if not with the best case scenario of resolving the error, then at least with improving the terrible dead end error page.
    I've been advised as follows:
    "Product management has indicated in the past that it is considered an enhancement request. The reasoning is that users are not meant to see the page unless there is an actual problem (such as a SAML misconfiguration), in which case the issue itself is addressed rather than the page.
    I understand your situation is a little different, with the page showing up occasionally even though SAML is set up properly. However, not having been able to reproduce this ourselves, I'm afraid we will need a step-by-step scenario representative of a typical use case that can replicate the issue consistently (or at least with high probability) in order to regard this as different from the other cases."
    We can replicate the issue consistently from console by opening from SSOService, which is expected to fail as single use, but there is no sign of why users are sometimes directed to end at this single use 200 and in others they are routed correctly.
    It is frustrating to receive no further support because an issue cannot be replicated every single time by 'natural' use, but can be replicated consistently by console.
    The argument for not fixing the error page to be more meaningful could also be made for any error page ie no-one is "meant" to see an error page.
    Ex Libris should fix so that we may support our users better than this when they do occur.

    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  7. 58 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  · 

    This idea has been under review for almost 5 years.

  8. 56 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 was advised in a case that the 2019 fix does not cover this completely for Primo on Back Office, as also dependent on browser. It may work for a time or for certain browsers, but is often not consistent through browser updates.

  9. 53 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 believe this is technically possible by a different manner of running a Delete and Reload pipe. This can now be scheduled with NERS delivery of '6184: Make it possible to override Start Harvest date for Delete and ReLoad pipes' in May 2020. I run this process monthly, which seems sufficient for our 3 OAI data sources.

  10. 118 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    7 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  · 

    Users often like to see the options arrayed visually, rather than starting to type and only maybe being offered the autosuggest they'd like.
    An autosuggest also constrains a user into typing, rather than clicking or tapping quickly.
    We don't use Journal Search in Primo on Back Office, but we have Database Search active which has an A-Z. The use of this is high by the amount that it shows up on our Popular Searches results.
    For example, in 2019 there were 3,857 clicks on "P", which is highly likely users quickly targeting to PubMed, as that is also our consistently most popular search. And "W" was 2,749 clicks, likely for Web of Science, and "S" was 2,331 likely for Scopus.
    Perhaps we should consider, instead of deciding that we know better and telling users that the manner in which they want to search is old-fashioned, we should instead listen to the action of users and instead support them by offering both options?

  11. 12 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. 12 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  · 

    Even though I acknowledge that the CZ Task List entries are retained in the 'All' filter, it is a very time-consuming workflow to leave a record to go to the separate list to look up this information.
    I wholeheartedly agree with and thank you for submitting this, and would add a small expansion to Electronic Collections also.

    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  13. 25 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 taking back my own votes from this, as per the Oct/Nov/Dec 2020 updates that
    "In collaboration with the Community Zone Management Group, it will not be possible to add or edit the following fields in the Community Zone by members of the community:
    856 subfield u
    All 9xx fields excluding 906, 999 and 920
    These fields will NOT be saved even if edited/added, as a new Normalization Rule, applicable only in the CZ, will prevent this.
    A cleanup of these fields from Community Zone records will follow."
    I've prompted Ex Libris on the listserv on 18.11.2020 to close this entry as completed given almost full matching to the stated idea, so feel free to withdraw your own votes if you agree.

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

    Note: Ex Libris developed local extensions as their solution to this problem, but they are not mandatory, so individuals may still freely add local fields to shared CZ records.

    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  14. 55 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  · 
  15. 2 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  · 

    Hi Sonja,
    I have a case now with a fix coming in Q2 2021 which may solve this?
    It's a different starting point scenario because our relink issue came up due to deleting and resurrecting a bib and being unable to relink the POL after that.
    But the fix description sounds like it might be more comprehensive?
    You can check out the published case here 00868204, but here is the fix description which I asked for:
    "yes, the problem happens in the following scenario:
    - when you cancel a PO Line with "Childless bib action = Delete bibliographic records"
    - and then restoring the bib record and reviving the PO Line.
    The cancel action has removed the bib record from the PO Line and currently, the Relink only knows how to update the existing bib record in a PO Line but fails if there is no bib record linked to the PO Line at this moment.
    We will fix the Relink action so that it will also work if there is no bib record linked to the PO Line at this moment."

  16. 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)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    It's very manual, record by record, but you can do this by norm rule:
    https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Knowledge_Articles/Turn_Off_Dedup_and_FRBR_in_Primo

  17. 2 votes
    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 » 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)
    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  18. 68 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 » 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  · 

    It's disappointing that this idea has so few votes when Evidence-Based Practice is such a focus, and this is vital data on user engagement with different types of formats ie electronic vs physical.
    I have long contemplated putting in a submission for yet another gap of no actions recorded in Primo Analytics for View It services clicks.
    These are partially recorded in Alma Analytics for Link Resolver, but completely missing for any Link in Record links for either remote PCI/CDI or external local sources. So few votes here makes me think I shouldn't bother,but at the same time it amazes me that this gap hasn't been filled already as standard.

    Edit: I'll take the plunge, here's an idea for the View It clicks
    Primo Analytics - Add Actions for clicks on View It links, for both Link in Record and Link Resolver
    https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/41480614-primo-analytics-add-actions-to-be-recorded-for-c

    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  19. 135 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  · 

    There's no label just for 'Primo', Lisbeth, as this enhancement channel was designed before Primo VE existed. It applies to all flavours of Primo regardless of deployment model. My impression is that it only needs a Primo VE tag if Primo on Back Office already has the functionality, but Primo VE does not. I have seen incorrect entries for this though, as someone on a Primo VE site might not know that a idea isn't possible in Back Office either.

  20. 38 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  · 

    Have you considered use of the category tree? I understand completely if the submission is only for Subject headings, as would be found in the Subject facet in main Primo, but perhaps you might not be aware of the option to add a category tree. We use this for a curated list of subject categories and then have a second tier for 'Key Resources', as many other commenters have described as being desirable. This makes for a different search experience to main Primo, as offering our users a list designed just for a focus area for our university with databases chosen by the expert liaison librarian supporting that areas, which helps also to not just replicate the Primo search in two different places, as each offers a distinct feature.

Feedback and Knowledge Base