Stacey van Groll
My feedback
178 results found
-
21 votesStacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
18 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I'm curious as to why they're bothering to go to Browse Search when they're already browsing? Why do they feel they have to perform the search again when they're in a results list by that term and can adjust the Advanced Search query or use the nested facets? Browse Search will actually limit their results, in only including local records when the lateral link shown in your screencast includes remote CDI records as well which match the term.
-
103 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I suggest to merge and rename to CDI this submission: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/43803426-customize-cdi-activations-by-resource-types
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Recommend to merge with existing submission: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/43465527-display-pagination-navigation-on-top-of-resultpage
-
129 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
It is really unfortunate that the new pagination option to display up to 50 results by user selection in May 2021 was not included in Collection Discovery, which keeps the same Load More Results.
This also adds a design inconsistency across Primo interfaces.
The design is that it will only apply to Collection Discovery if a user sets this already for the session in main Primo and then happens to navigate into Collection Discovery.
As it is a very common user pathway to provide direct links to specific collections, such as promoting content in a web page by direct link to a collection, this means that a user is guaranteed to bypass main Primo and then miss out on the opportunity to set an increase in page numbers. -
19 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
52 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Doesn't that CSS code just hide the suggestion, Manuela? The DYM index is taking effect on the results in Primo VE, right? So the results would still be highlighted as 'light', using the original example.
I often think that the downfall of this feature is what seems to be the unnecessary complexity, so it is almost impossible to explain.
For example, if I test this on one of my local data sources with Hmong consumers, I get two results with among and consumers highlighted. If I choose the suggestion for 'among consumers', then I get 19 results, some of which have among and consumers also clearly in the data, including the title. But the key is that the two which showed up originally have apparently been triggered by the Levenshtein distance aspect of the distance between the two words (it's not documented what that is specifically that I can find), whereas in the other records the words among and consumer are further apart.
Try explaining that to a user!
And there's also the issue that only the local index is used to build the index from title and authors, which drastically reduces the value because it's missing out on more unique and newer terms that might only be in emerging research topics which only have articles thus far in CDI, which are actually more likely for users to misspell and need help with. -
18 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Hi Manu - it should just be 'User interface' category, as this is not specific to VE model but for Primo as a product.
-
70 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
10 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
A proviso please to make this configurable. We have use cases where we need users without accounts to view this information, such as for our licenses allowing access by walk-in users to our physical locations. We also make an effort to have as many Open Access and Open Educational Resources (OER) resources as possible, and we would like users here also without accounts to be able to see the information we choose to add to associated licenses.
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Hi Saleena - did Francois's post on the listserv not meet your needs for adjusting the display, not the source data?
-
34 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Hi - This idea is already submitted here with currently 78 votes: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/36909595-a-z-option-in-primo-ve-journal-search
-
6 votes
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.
-
91 votes
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.
-
44 votes
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.
-
184 votes
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? -
19 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
Hi Moshe,
I don't think such workflows for rejected requests are unknown to Ex Libris. It's necessary for monitoring, tracking, and resolving requests in a variety of scenarios, such as those which were cancelled while In Transit. This then hinders other workflows such as deleting a Library. Alma should not just 'disappear' a request as if it never existed, and we need visibility of all requests in Alma. This should already be the case under the 'All' filter selection, which is a defect. But it would also be helpful as this submission suggests to specifically add also a 'Rejected' filter. I am well aware from a case open for years that this filter was about to be released, and was even in Release Notes for May 2021, and then was pulled last minute.