Stacey van Groll
My feedback
157 results found
-
2 votesStacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
242 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Hi Natasja, you should be able to do this by adding the AVA field for display. We have a local practice of using LC in the bib record and then adding a Local running call number at the holdings level when we shift items to our off-site Warehouse. So, a little different use than yours in open stacks. I've already had a Local Call Number field for display, but just from the 090 in the bib for resources without LC. To date I've only grabbed both the AVA and the 090 for search data, just in case it's the only information a user wrote down from a record, but am now adding the AVA also for display as well, so that it is included in the Excel Export.
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
We don't use this feature but the documentation has entries added for this and I observed them added to our OAS (just with no data).
Are you advising that they are being used but you're not seeing any data recorded?
The action is: Clicking on a resource type filter bar - <1-11>
The user selected All (position 1) or a resource type (position 2-11) in the Resource Type Filter Bar.
Data for this action is available starting with the May 2023 release.
https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Product_Documentation/Primo/Analytics/040Primo_Analytics_Subject_Areas/Primo_Action_Usage -
97 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
We cannot use Rapido, as Ex Libris has excluded Primo sites managed by Back Office sites from using it.
But I have this on my dealbreaker list anyway for Rapido if Ex Libris ever changed that decision, because of this hardcoded results issue. -
15 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I reported this as a defect for Primo managed by Back Office more than a year ago in March 2022, and the case is in Development since then.
This is because the quicklinks also display in the Links section despite the configuration not including them.The data is <linktopdf> and <linktohtml>
Production configuration under Views > 61UQ > Tile List > Full Display > Full Results > Links to display in full results
Back Link
Link to TOC
Link to Abstract
Link to Review
Link to Price
Link to Finding Aid
Additional Link
Link to Union Catalog
lln02 -
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
We’ve used ‘Search collections’ as the consistent labelling because all of the options either have this initially, or have the option to expand to it with one click, per the November 2021 Release
* The lobby search box is for everything --- yes, agreed.
* The top-level collection search box is for the title of sub-collections in that area only --- this searches titles of child collections and items within the top-level collection in the initial query. I believe it’s quite common for sites to not have items directly within the top-level collection level when they also have child collections, but it can be seen as being done in the results split into section of Collections (x) and Items in the collection (y). Then there is the option to expand the search into all collections in Collection Discovery by the hyperlink option for ‘Try searching in all collections’
* The sub-collection search box is for items in that sub-collection only --- yes, with the same optional workflow to expand by ‘Try searching in all collections’Ex Libris advised this the possible options given the search scoping infrastructure.
I agree that the need for the extra click by initial scoping is a little less than ideal, but we haven't had any comments on this with our 'Search collections' labelling.
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Could this be managed by making renewable false in the TOU but using the Block Preferences by override setting by role?
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
It this idea was approved, I would like to advocate that it should be opt-in, or the name data should be an addition, rather than a replacement for the IDs.
I'm aware that some sites may use data such as strings of numbers for IDs. At our site we have Primary IDs which are staff usernames and they are able to be identified without manual crosschecks, so this is not a factor.
A greater concern though is that names are changeable whereas Primary IDs are not. For example, we may have staff who have changed their names, for reasons such as personal relationships, by personal choice, or to reflect identity.
This becomes an issue when data displayed is the prior name which may cause distress to individuals as well as confusion for other staff.
It could be that Ex Libris would update this data retrospectively for name changes, but this would presumably add considerable complexity to the development, such as if the account had been deleted from Alma.
As such, we would choose not to enable this feature, if indeed it was added as opt-in and would support Ex Libris using Primary ID consistently for the above reasons. -
1 voteStacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
55 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
100% support for this submission. As a site using Primo Back Office, I have no idea how I'm meant to transfer all our 7 years of good work in this area to Primo VE when there are such massive limitations.
And also some frustration that there appears to be an expectation that we should just give up and sacrifice this, and move regardless. Especially when some of this work includes also areas of the record which we cannot touch at all in VE, including normalisation of availability statements and links and facets.
It simply is not possible with VE development currently, and Ex Libris needs to address this so that we can properly present all our collections.Stacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
124 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I’ve been directed here by Ex Libris after putting in documentation feedback that I couldn’t see any information on expectation of a default for ‘Export to Libraries Australia’, which appears to be ‘Don’t Publish’. We want autonomy to be able to decide for ourselves what records are marked automatically to be externally published, and not be forced to have our records marked to publish to OCLC and not to Libraries Australia. MD Editor Templates are hardcoded to this as well. Also, the MARC21 Bibliographic Normalize on Save task options for both OCLC and Libraries Australia do not work (closed Pending Work Plan case from 2018). The only options are trying to catch as many records as you can by import profile management tag settings and endlessly creating sets and running manual jobs. This seems ridiculous for a LMS which purports to support us with the ability to streamline by automating our work. It seems like that’s only true when what we want happens to match what Ex Libris wants.
-
0 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This request might be better to submit for the Alma Idea Exchange, rather than Primo?
-
10 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
19 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Noting that the gap exists also between Books and Book Chapters where if a Book has the Open Access indicator and included in the facet, this is not inherited by Book Chapters records of this Book, which are still dependent on individual provider to provide this information per record.
Ex Libris advised this as an enhancement request, and they will not document it.An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I can't edit my idea for unknown reasons, so I'll add here adjustment of September 2022 for VE and November 2022 for Primo BO.
Stacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Would you be able to provide some example links from your environment?
We're working on transitioning from ezproxy to OpenAthens now and this caught our eye for something to be concerned about, but we're a bit confused without seeing practical examples. -
7 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
The 'Collection' facet can be used to do this for full text active collections, although the names may vary slightly from what the patron expects.
nb I don't understand why this is only requested specifically for Primo VE, which would deliberately exclude Primo customers using Back Office. Of course all Primo customers should benefit from all developments for 'Primo' as a product.
-
23 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
My submission is a lot more wordy with a user story, but I think this is the same requested concept that I have entered here: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/45235477-add-ability-to-save-a-record-with-a-label-while-in
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This suggestion is of course also relevant and would be of value for Primo customers, not just Primo VE.
Stacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
12 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This is of course relevant for Primo customers as well, for returning results from CDI.
-
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.
This is an alignment issue, as possible in Primo Back Office with Alma, but not Primo VE.