Stacey van Groll
My feedback
169 results found
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I've tested this and they all work to change to display the service or not depending on the setting and resource.
Who told you they don't work and that it would be an enhancement to correct an in-system non-functioning feature? -
92 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
An excellent idea. This is one of the reasons we don't use this feature. It is needed not just for VE though, but for all Primo customers.
-
17 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I live in fear of accidentally clicking a default radio button for this reason! Or for one of my fellow admins at our site to do this.
I've never gotten around to doing a case myself, but I wonder if anyone has and been advised by Ex Libris that this is actually an enhancement request as opposed to a defect?
It certainly seems to me to be a defect that you cannot unselect a default, and wonder what justification there would be for deliberately designing this into a product. -
64 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I wish I had more votes spare for this. I support it both for giving Admins autonomy to manage this area, including by cutting down on time wasted with Salesforce cases, plus also it is ridiculous that the admin customer sees only the view full of codes that often do not match the actual outcome of change, and the vendor gets the lovely clearly well-designed UI. This is completely opposite to what it should be, though ideally both admin and vendor gets both.
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I reported this factor for Contextual Relationships in June 2019.
It was advised: "the book chapters are not displayed in a specific order, because we don't have the necessary data for that, when the chapters are found in the related item call." -
1 voteStacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
10 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
I concur with Andy's comments that the existing feature to hide terms applies to both local and CDI records, which I confirmed in my Sandbox testing.
We do not use this in Production partly per Andy's comment also that the feature is only for display. -
2 votesStacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
298 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Stacey van Groll
commented
This is an alignment issue, as possible in Primo Back Office with Alma, but not Primo VE.
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 -
110 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 -
1 vote
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?
-
1 voteStacey van Groll
shared this idea
·
-
60 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
·
-
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
·
If implemented, please fulfill as an addition, not a change.
We find creation date valuable, but would appreciate also to have updated date.
There should be no need to sacrifice one for another.