Stacey van Groll
My feedback
178 results found
-
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I agree that this is problematic behaviour. I haven't reported it but in hindsight think I should have given it seems a defect rather than desired intention design. I can't think of any reason why a user cancelling a search , the user continuing in UI to other activities, and then those other activities being disrupted by the search completing regardless would be deliberate. Cancel needs to mean cancel.
-
391 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
30 votes
Hello,
We will reach out to the provider and ask for the metadata for this collection.
Thanks,
Tamar Ganor
Content Product ManagerStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
17 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
While not a complete or very quick solution, there is the option to save to My Favourites to export in greater numbers.
The official supported limit is 200, but I've exported over 800 at once.
They can be saved pretty quickly to a label in Favourites for ease of export by changing number of results to 50 and then use the bulk selection option at the top of the results, add label, scroll to bottom, select next page, repeat.
You'd still need to consider the overall search limit of 2,000 in a blended search, so the query must be very targeted and/or faceted from the outset to be a reasonable number. -
80 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
73 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
There has been some display and defect improvement in November 2022 Primo Release, with partial association to my case 05299251.
There was a defect fixed where the the email provided was admin@primo.com, instead of being taken from our E-Mail Addresses mapping table.
And the styling has also been improved.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
·
-
29 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I hope Ex Libris did not suggest that this be posted to Idea Exchange!
Idea Exchange is for enhancements, not for defects which Ex Libris has not prioritised fixing. -
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
You can loan to the new patron without checking in from the original patron, if you allow staff to Override the Block Preference for 'Item is currently on loan by another patron'.
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Could you advise an example or if this is in a specific area?
I went to check it and the Details display is as expected with double dash eg alma991000002559707081 with
Germany -- Economic conditions
Germany -- Politics and government -- 1789-1900 -
122 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
35 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I think that this idea has strong similarity (but some differences) to my own idea targeted for CDI facet restrictions:
https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/42521581-remove-restriction-on-number-of-primo-facets-value -
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Ex Libris have previously declined this concept, with reasoning here: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/37969432-portfolio-link-checker
-
43 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This is a parity issue with VE only having the Zero Results message and not the broad range of informative feedback messages which are in Primo using Back Office.
Although it does sound like there is worse behaviour on VE in not showing any results at all, because BO will still display some local results typically.
It could also be that the results do vary further for other messages for BO, and perhaps they aren't all relevant for VE, given the lucene vs solr aspect.
But definitely there are some instances like for this submission where there are definitely limits in place for VE and yet it has no messages to advise patrons.
See the "Partial results found." message on this page to meet this example: https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Product_Documentation/Primo/End_User_Help_-_New_UI/Feedback_Messages
-
35 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
57 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
141 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I think this is a limitation by sheer performance load. With the current situation, the data is quantifiable (and yet Primo VE is still so much slower than Primo on BO). There would logically be a greatly more significant system demand if sites were allowed to control their own search and facet data, adjusting the indexing dramatically. I suppose this is the price of the 'real time indexing'. I'd love to be proven wrong.
Stacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Hi Kathleen,
This is a defect, rather than an enhancement, per OLH that 1 million rows is supported.
It was meant to be fixed in June per my case:
"June 2022 Analytics SF: 06047995
The number of rows that were possible to export in formatted Excel format was limited. This was expanded to 1,000,000 rows."I reported back to my case after the release that the behaviour remained the same. It was checked and advised that the application found to be incomplete.
The fix is now scheduled again for August.
-
67 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This would of course be a nice feature for Primo sites overall, not just those on VE as per the tagged category.
I've added a lateral link by local field into main Primo for all records in Collection Discovery, mapped to a local 'Collection' facet to meet this need for a good connection point into main Primo, in returning all results in the collection.
But it requires for a user to open a record and find the lateral link, whereas this is a very nice idea to add a button which would be much more visible.
This is a parity item between Primo (managed by Back Office) and Primo VE (managed by Alma), as there is a checkbox mapping table option to hide Personal Details section in BO.