Stacey van Groll
My feedback
168 results found
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
32 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I have too few votes available to devote to this and we don’t actually use course information at our site, but am commenting support for the underlying premise of expectation of customer autonomy over what local data is searchable in their own discovery environment for their own records.
This is a logical and reasonable baseline standard, is available to customers using Primo managed by Back Office, and Ex Libris should have prioritised maintaining the option of choice when developing Primo VE, rather than deciding just to hardcode their chosen OTB. -
20 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I wonder if the existing Originating System field will meet this need? OTB this will display as Unknown but can be configured to display meaningful information, including by Import Profile. https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Product_Documentation/010Alma_Online_Help_(English)/080Analytics/Alma_Analytics_Subject_Areas/Titles
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
My prior comment was misguided due to Ex Libris having codes for this display in Primo VE as added from Primo BO (and displayed there in BO as configured), but despite this they do not show them in Primo VE. I was also misinformed originally in my case on this topic, being advised that the labels would only appear after transition to VE, rather than only during enablement.
They advise this is by design per usability studies on the link resolver that not all the labels are understandable with users tested expressing confusion of the meaning of different link resolver statuses. Therefore they decided to remove them for Primo VE display.
However, this completely ignores the possibility for a library to normalise these terms ourselves, as should be our right to decide, and in Primo BO we have made them the same for consistency and clear signposting to a patron as to the nature of the link action.
Instead it's just decided for everyone to take it away completely in VE (and yet leave the codes behind in configuration).
Given this supposed better design, I've also queried why there is still a prepend for Link in Record when presumably the same premise of confusion would reside there. In sum, the supposedly better design isn't even consistently applied. Hopefully this doesn't result in them just doubling down and extending this poor decision to taking that away as well.
Very disappointing and concerning decision-making from Ex Libris.An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
There is Code of fulldisplay.Access_content_in with Description option such as:
View online: {{provider}}This would seem to lead to the desired outcome if changing the Description accordingly in your environment per the example screenshot:
Click here for access: ProQuest Central -
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Reasoning for logged in only included concern for ability for the user to add any email address for the export file to be sent and no sender information sent to know their identify, per the existing email functionality. With files upwards of 16 MB and more, this could be used quite maliciously without any verification of the sender at all, including clogging up CRM systems with massive files in quick succession and inability to prevent this other than strategies like blocking the Primo From address or setting rules to send to spam or disabling the feature completely.
There are also system performance impacts to consider with bulk sendings. -
51 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
112 votesStacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
153 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This seems like it might be a defect rather than an enhancement. Can it be advised what Ex Libris determination of this is? Did they state it was an enhancement in a support case response?
-
10 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Is this asking for an enhancement to hide the Resource Sharing Service if the site has enabled Unpaywall PDF links, and the record shows both?
Generally my understanding is that this only happens when the site hasn't also enabled the Unpaywall collection for full text links, and then the API to show the Unpaywall PDF link is returning a result but the CDI collection is a little bit behind in being up to date.
The example isn't returning a result.
I am also wondering why this is referring to "scheduling of a fix" when defects should not be added to Idea Exchange, which is for enhancements. -
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
No offense intended if not, but is this a bot?
It reads strangely and some of these suggestions would not be suitable and disruptive to case management for how cases might be handled by each site (Automatic Case Creation) or reference aspects of SalesForce customers can't see (Combined Dashboard). -
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I’ve recently been troubleshooting an issue with search results on a provider platform which reminded me of this submission.
I already had concerns with it in anticipating it causing search return problems in Primo, but this analysis I conducted on the other platform solidified the issue in my mind, and I thought it useful to share here as to why I would not support this submission.The article in question:
How to make sure you’re not using data just to justify decisions you’ve already madeThis issue was that results for an exact title match were not returning the known item, unless entered with quotation marks.
I noticed that in the results which were returned, the term highlighting for matches to the search query stopped after “you’re” even though “not” also matches the query.
Given “not” is a known Boolean operator, I suspected that there might be an issue where it’s being treated incorrectly to tell the search engine to not return results.
Hence Boolean operators in capitals typically to avoid this problem. And this is the case for Primo with NOT, AND, OR.
Adding quotation marks worked to return the known item though because they force an exact phrase match, as opposed to Boolean behaviour, and overrides the defect for “not” being treated as Boolean.
And sure enough with some iterative testing it is found that skipping the word “not” when not using quotation marks resulted in the desired article being returned.• Query: How to make sure you’re not using data just to justify decisions you’ve already made – Results: 22 results and the desired article is not among them, despite being an exact match
• Query: How to make sure – Results: 783 results and the desired article is not in the first 50, but presumably it is in the results set somewhere
• Query: How to make sure you’re – Results: 27 results and the desired article is No.6
• Query: How to make sure you’re not – Results: Same as directly above, with 27 results and the desired article is No.6
• Query: How to make sure you’re not using – Results: 22 results, and the desired article is missing (repeat for additional words added). Assumption here being that the desired article is not returned because the “not” tells the search engine that the results need to contain “How to make sure you’re” but NOT include “using”
• Query: “How to make sure” – Results: 388 results and the desired article is not in the first 50, but presumably it is in the results set somewhere
• Query: “How to make sure you’re” – Results: 23 results and the desired article is No.5
• Query: “How to make sure you’re not using” – Results: 5 results and they are all the desired article. Assumption here being that quotation marks are overriding Boolean to force an exact phrase query
• Query: How to make sure you’re using – Results: 5 results and they are all the desired article -
37 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I'm surprised this would be considered an enhancement request. I can't think of other jobs where the job name is not clear to state the job which failed with granularity by profile. Was this advised in a case that it was an enhancement rather than a defect?
-
20 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I'm not sure I understand completely, but the full text aspect is controllable by the site to activate the collection. For example, an Unpaywall collection is available as of a few months back to resolve a lot of these instances. I personally would be concerned to undermine the premise of the default search experience including full text available resources, if there is no full text link. Otherwise, if Open Access resources with a full text link are not included in the default search, that sounds like a defect. Perhaps provide an example to help resolve this confusion as to the meaning of this submission?
-
279 votes
Dear colleagues,
Thank you for raising this idea.
This was part of the CERV cycle in 2025, but did not make it to the final list.
During the analysis, 3 possible approaches were discussed, each has a different estimation and effort:
Option 1: New dedicated process type
- It will be possible to mark specific items as "unavailable", similarly to the way it is possible to mark them as "missing"
- Items marked as "unavailable" will be considered as "not in place"
- The new "unavailable" option will appear as a possible process type in all the places where there is a list of process types, including configuration options such as Fulfillment Unit Rules
Option 2: Mark a location as "unavailable"
- It will be possible to mark a location as "unavailable"
- All items in this location will be considered as "not in place"
- The difference from option 1 is that when an item…
Stacey van Groll
supported this idea
·
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I've noticed student queries seeking ability to limit results by place. Use cases include higher degree students for a specific research focus, or undergraduates who have assignments where their lecturers stipulate that they need to include national or regional emphasis.
It's certainly an issue to have a facet like this which only has local results, as I can imagine patrons being upset with potentially being misled when using it and not realising that they are excluding all CDI results even though publication information is visible in the records.
It might still be difficult also though to make such a facet meaningful and useful, given the place of publication could be very granular to a particular state, when patrons might be interested in a country. That would be onerous to manage for selections, particularly with facet value limits.
Overall though, it would be great to have the option of a blended facet for this, for records from all data sources including CDI. -
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I'm concerned that this would be considered an enhancement request when it's clearly marked as a known issue ie a defect. I suggest submission as a SalesForce case, to encourage Ex Libris to action a fix.
-
7 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I'm not quite sure if this is meant to be two separate submission? For the second portion, I wonder if you've cleared cache/cookies recently or not allowed functional cookies? This may cause Recently selected entries to not appear as expected.
Otherwise, that sounds like a regression (which describes functionality which used to exist and now doesn't due to an issue), not an enhancement request. -
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This would be a defect according to the documentation, which is clear that the setting works on a collection level.
Could it perhaps be the case that the articles are coming from another source which is not suppressed? You can check this in the CDI Activation Analysis Tool.
This setting will not prevent continuing presentation unless you suppressed all of the collections containing the article, as it is collection specific (and this is documented).
The permalink IDs may still include the suppressed collection, but that's because it's a randomised ID from the participant records. -
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
Have you tried the Partner setting for "Enable service for guest user - Indicates whether the link to the partner displays in Primo when the patron is not logged in."?
We don't have this active usually, as we offer resource sharing only for certain logged in patrons, but I tested it in Sandbox and it correctly caused the option to appear in Primo Get It.
I'm sorry that I don't understand what this means.
Are you suggesting that only 1 request can be submitted and then all other patrons will try to place a request and get a message of being denied?
Or that they wouldn't see the option to place a request at all in the discovery environment?
Why are requests being cancelled for lack of copies? Do you mean your staff cancel them manually, as otherwise they would just be pending not yet active until a copy is returned?
I'm not sure how that would be less confusing to a patron to have to know that if the availability information is Requests: 1 that this means they can't place a request themselves.
Could it be explained a bit more?