Stacey van Groll
My feedback
157 results found
-
405 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
14 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
72 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
·
-
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 -
149 votes
Hello all,
Alma currently support publishing of a set of records with the enriched related records information. For more information please refer to Related Records Enrichment section (MARC only) section in the online help page.
Are you aware of this existing capability? Is this not sufficient for your needs?
Stacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
38 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 -
15 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
-
37 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
56 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.
-
105 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.
-
1 voteStacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
122 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I raised this with Ex Libris Senior Management in August 2020, after being told in a case response that I should have reported to the appropriate team, rather than using the 'Report to Ex Libris' function: "We would like to recommend reporting similar issues to CDI Support team in the future - according to the product where the issue is replicated."
I used the 'Report to Ex Libris' function because I had directly correlated an issue in a CDI record in Primo from a specific Alma Electronic Collection, and all through the CDI rollout it was marketed to customers clearly and repeatedly that a significant component of the reasoning for the move of index management into Alma was for the benefit of integrated platform functionality.
Why should we have to log into the separate SalesForce platform and go through the many dropdown arrows to submit a new case, and copy and paste a great deal of information such as record IDs, when we can directly identify a particular portfolio or collection as the root cause of an issue?
When reporting via Alma, we have none of these pain points, all of the record information is included in the case automatically on our behalf and we have only to add some simple information such as example permalinks and issue description.
What we have is an attempt at an integrated system of products, trying to match with SalesForce support teams that are rigidly segregated by product.My response was: "… it is a completely acceptable workflow for us to submit cases within Alma via 'Report to Ex Libris', when we can identify a direct correlation with the CDI collection within Alma." and "… if it is desired for us to try to determine if the issue is Alma data or CDI data, then it would be up to Ex Libris to add another dropdown option to the 'Report to Ex Libris' page, as we would be more than happy to choose CDI or Alma."
But here we are now, almost two years later in June 2022 at time of writing, and this aspect of "CDI via Alma" integration still has no sign of being in place in Alma.
Stacey van Groll
supported 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).
-
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.
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.