Stacey van Groll
My feedback
204 results found
-
7 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
22 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
The display is by ISBN/ISSN/LCCN according to OLH (some of the pages don't mention LCCN, while others do).
In such cases where the image is wrong in Alma, perhaps check to see if the identifier is correct in the bibliographic record?
-
0 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Hi Ana - Apologies if I'm not misinterpreting the full scenario, but shouldn't this be covered by the Interested In Letter, triggered if you have selected to "Notify upon cancelation"?
Notify upon cancelation - When selected, Alma sends an email to the user when the order is canceled. An email is sent only if this is selected and an email address is configured for the user. This option is clear by default. To control whether it is selected or not, use the po_ line_notify_interested_users_upon_cancelation customer parameter (Configuration Menu > Acquisitions > General > Other Settings).
-
48 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
There is an earlier Idea Exchange submission which is marked as Completed (417 votes).
It has caused this new submission to be needed because it was done only with this artificial limit of 10:
https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/35043796-summary-holdings-display-primo-ve -
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
What a poor first experience for you!
I haven't used it yet myself, and I'm a bit shocked it would create a blank case when an analyst hasn't even engaged. -
50 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I agree with Manu that this is a defect if Primo is not making the data meaningful for UI.
The normalisation rules should adjust for this, in adjusting the date to cover the range.
For example, if you check the PNX of a record with 199-, it can be seen to be adjusted to 1990 for sort and search, while it will display as 199- per the source record permitted cataloguing.
As another example with 260 ##$a[Vancouver :$bDuthie Books,$c199-?-1994], the range will be <startdate>19900101</startdate> <enddate>19941231</enddate> -
81 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
If this was developed, please allow for a configuration option to choose which reports to send or not send if empty, as sometimes it is the purpose of the report.
This could be by the Analytics Object, such as a checkbox during configuration in Alma, to check the box to not send if empty. -
267 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I'm not an expert in authorities nor music works, but I think many of these UI problems are only in Primo VE, and not Primo (managed via Back Office)
* Record counts: Primo VE presents "20+ records", where Primo display the accurate record count eg 560 records (bar minor FRBR/Dedup variations)
* Records returned: Primo VE returns hits outside the author heading such as 600, where Primo presents from the author heading, in an author Browse Search, which I believe covers the left-anchored aspect also
* References: I'm not seeing any sign that Primo VE supports See or See Also references in Browse Search. Primo supports See but not See Also references in Browse Search
* Fields: I won't try to dive into all the subfields mentioned, but Primo sites have the ability to adjust the Browse rules as they see fit, such as if there is a subfield which they'd like to add to Browse Search
Harvard has a lovely Browse Search on Primo via Back Office, labelled in main menu as 'Starts with / Browse': https://hollis.harvard.edu/primo-explore/browse?vid=HVD2&browseQuery=bizet,%20georges&browseScope=author&innerPnxIndex=-1&numOfUsedTerms=-1&fn=BrowseSearch -
9 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
62 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I have just had one of our staff ask after this, as it is very unnecessarily time-consuming to have to click in and out of the email address entries repeatedly just to see the key field of Description.
I completely agree with the submission in not wanting to create user accounts for this to try to solve what seems to be a very simple fix to add the option to the cog icon display to allow users to display the Description if they want to. -
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I asked about this in a case and was advised that the VE files are examples only and all Primo customers (VE and BO) must open a case to request updated files. This is now indicated in the VE documentation with: "Since this information is updated per customer requests, please contact support to get an updated list for your institution.".
Presumably, if you were considering moving from BO to VE and wanted to compare the files as part of your transition project, you could ask for both files in the case and to be advised if they were at parity.
The last file I asked for and received for our BO site included the ranking eg Very High, Very Low etc. -
167 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
The set of 3 ideas which would drastically improve irrelevant and meaningless CDI results, by restoring and adding search tools which empower our users to target their search and their results, and and fixing the design decisions which make these tools very necessary:
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This feature is even more important with CDI.
I have complaints because users are getting results returned on the basis of one of their terms being only in the reference list in a URL of a citation.
In sum, completely irrelevant to their query, as nowhere else in the record metadata or the true full text of the work.
If you could force Primo (actually CDI) to only return results for your search terms when in close proximity, this would drastically improve this currently very poor situation.An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I've submitted this for Primo NERS 2020.
Title: Add a proximity search operator
Request ID: 6682
Description: A proximity operator allows a researcher to specify that their search terms are present in records within a specified number of words from each other.
Summon already incorporates this feature, performed by enclosing search terms in quotation marks and using tilde and the number distance, for example "yeast bread"~10 finds material where "yeast" and "bread" appear within 10 words of each other.
See https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Summon/Product_Documentation/Searching_in_The_Summon_Service/Search_Features/Summon%3A_Boolean%2C_Phrase%2C_Wildcard_and_Proximity_Searching#proximity
Primo’s search algorithm incorporates an out-of-the-box assignment of higher ranking to records where search terms are closer together, but a proximity search operator gives a researcher explicitly more control over precise targeting of their search, which would also help to build greater understanding and confidence that the results will meet their needs and aren’t just from a mysterious “black box”.
With CDI coming soon to Primo, along with the massive increase in records, this trust building will be even more important to support researchers with tools to help sift through billions of results.
This tool should primarily support PNX and equivalent record metadata (both Primo via Back Office and Primo VE deployment models), but ideally would also incorporate standard existing extensions to remote data where available, including table of contents, abstracts, and full text.
See Idea Exchange submission: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/19308214-proximity-search-operator-for-fulltext-search-in-pStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I would love to see this in Primo, for full text and for record metadata, which are both available in Summon.
Our site was on Summon when I was studying myself and I constantly used this functionality for my research and assignments, as a key strategy to improve ranking of results for several keywords.
It is a vital tool for topic searches for beginner and more advanced researchers alike, to help sift through the hundreds of millions of results, by improved targeting of results and moving them into prominent position. -
317 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
The set of 3 ideas which would drastically improve irrelevant and meaningless CDI results, by restoring and adding search tools which empower our users to target their search and their results, and and fixing the design decisions which make these tools very necessary:
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Some user-focused reasons to vote:
* Do you get queries from confused users who have searched in specific fields like Subject, Title, and Author, and then get results that have no sign of their search terms in those fields?
* Do your users wonder why they don’t see features like lateral links to find more records in these results, and don’t get the expected data they searched also exported to EndNote?Stacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
24 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
There is still a preferred record display by cascade of preference by delivery category in Primo managed via Back Office. This will result in failure to display the fields from the non-preferred records when the field is duplicated, for example if the two records have a description field, then only the description from the preferred record displays.
It seems the difference with Primo VE is the dynamic nature of the deduplication, in this 'first record in the result list' aspect, as VE deduplicates at the point of search rather than the point of index, and therefore preferences to match the user query as primary.
I'd still really love to see an example of this variation in action, if you feel willing to provide one.An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Hi Floriane - can you provide an example, as I'm not sure what you mean for VE?
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This is standard configuration. Can you not see this in your site?
I'll attach a screenshot from a VE site. -
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Could more detail be provided? If you don't want to show a resource recommender entry, why not just remove it from the configuration?
-
11 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I agree with you that this would be a very useful enhancement. Until it's added as you suggest, there is potentially a workaround via the Events (being deprecated in Dec 2021) / System Events (replacement for Events) subject area. This has an Event type 9110 of Successful login, with a Creator of the Primary ID of the user. You could build this report first, and then use it to filter another report in the Users area by the Primary ID. Obviously more timeconsuming to set up than the Last Login simply being in the Users area, but at least it's something for right now. Be aware that the 1 hour timeout of Alma can trigger additional logins which you may not expect, depending on your authentication method ie you might find data of the same staff member repeatedly logging in throughout the day in a strangely consistent manner, but if you look at the Event Date and Time field, you are likely to set that it's in increments of the 1 hour timeout.
-
82 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This should not be limited to Primo VE, but recorded for all Primo customers.
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I can't replicate this and I believe therefore it is a bug to be reported in SalesForce, rather than an enhancement. There have also been issues with this is the past, fixed in prior releases, lending to my thought of this being a defect even more.
-
21 votesStacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
Hi Nikki - Yes, I didn't specify VE or BO, because it's an issue for Primo as a product and is not specific to a deployment model.