Ann-Louise
My feedback
15 results found
-
158 votes
Hi,
This is to update that this issue is still not planned to be developed in the current road map. We will continue to evaluate it for a future release.
Therefore we are keeping this under "Under review" status.
Best regards,
Yael.
Ann-Louise
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesAnn-Louise
supported this idea
·
-
198 votes
Hi,
We’re thinking along the lines of enabling rules that will automatically turn resource sharing requests to purchase requests based on criteria such as:
- Requester User Group
- Copyright related block
- Publication Date within time
- Request failure Yes\No → This will enable to set the rule to work when the request is created or when it is rejectedThe rules output will have options to either create purchase request in addition to the resource sharing one or cancel the resource sharing request and create purchase request instead.
An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment Ann-Louise
commented
Hi, Moshe
Sorry for the delayed answer. On our part the type of patron is irrelevant. We try to have the same level of service to all our patrons. Other institutions may prefer a more differentiated level of service here, I guess.Rules that would automatically transform a rs req into a purch req makes sense. The important thing is to keep track of history, so we know that this started as a rs req, in case we deny the purch req and prefer to make a ILL instead. Or we like to do both.
Thanks,
Ann-LouiseAn error occurred while saving the comment Ann-Louise
commented
If the request is held back with status "ready to be sent", like it does with material self ownership=true, then we can approve sending manually.
Ann-Louise
shared this idea
·
-
70 votesAnn-Louise
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Ann-Louise
commented
Supported
-
13 votesAnn-Louise
supported this idea
·
-
313 votesAnn-Louise
supported this idea
·
-
135 votesAnn-Louise
supported this idea
·
-
641 votesAnn-Louise
supported this idea
·
-
18 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ann-Louise
commented
It would be interesting to be able to run a check on items you receive lending requests for, where you question whether the item should be available for RS or not.
Interesting check-points: Is there a item policy, a location/FU/FUR/TOU that explaines it? A user group you have forgotten to restrict (maybe more for the borrowing requests)?Ann-Louise
supported this idea
·
-
41 votesAnn-Louise
supported this idea
·
-
99 votesAnn-Louise
supported this idea
·
-
273 votes
Hi,
Of course ! We will add a job that will be able to run on a set of user records and purge them, using standard validations (such as no existing loans, fees).
Thanks !
An error occurred while saving the comment Ann-Louise
commented
When is this to be implemented? I've been sitting all day running purge jobs in Alma. It takes forever. After 10 hours I've been able to purge almost 4000, out of almost 14000. This is not good enough. We really do need something that runs faster. Please, Ann-Louise
An error occurred while saving the comment Ann-Louise
commented
I believe both ideas here should be developed. Granularity on the user purge job, and adding a user delete job.
GDPR is just the latest reason why we should be concerned about how we handle user data in Alma. This has been a concern in Alma prior to the GDPR as well.Ann-Louise Skjager, Oslo metropolitan university
-
471 votesAnn-Louise
supported this idea
·
-
106 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ann-Louise
commented
Dear Vera,
I'll be pleased to help. Sending you an email very soon, where we can discuss the details.Best,
Ann-LouiseAnn-Louise
shared this idea
·
-
57 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ann-Louise
commented
I believe I would prefer the solution Cathrine is suggesting. As you point out, Stacey, the practice of changing your own account and in addition delete/add role privileges is a very time-consuming process. It's also easy to loose track of what you actually did with your own account.
Best,
Ann-Louise Skjager, Oslo Metropolitan UniversityAnn-Louise
supported this idea
·
Hi Moshe,
Yes, it would make sense. For us, as already stated, especially the publication date is essential. I believe the user who created the res sha req then will be registered as interested user, and receives the interested in letter, if activated?