Nikki DeMoville
My feedback
35 results found
-
157 votesNikki DeMoville supported this idea ·
-
32 votesNikki DeMoville supported this idea ·
-
189 votesNikki DeMoville supported this idea ·
-
36 votesNikki DeMoville supported this idea ·
-
70 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nikki DeMoville supported this idea · -
34 votesNikki DeMoville supported this idea ·
-
28 votesNikki DeMoville supported this idea ·
-
166 votesNikki DeMoville supported this idea ·
-
36 votes
Hello,
We will reach out to USGS and ask for discovery metadata.
Kind regards,
Tamar Ganor
Content Product Manager
Nikki DeMoville supported this idea · -
38 votesNikki DeMoville supported this idea ·
-
40 votesNikki DeMoville supported this idea ·
-
115 votesNikki DeMoville supported this idea ·
-
276 votesNikki DeMoville supported this idea ·
-
93 votesNikki DeMoville supported this idea ·
-
205 votesNikki DeMoville supported this idea ·
I literally stole a vote from something else to vote for this. Why? Taylor & Francis and their recent change from "access back to 1997" to "20 year rolling backfile." The current system works acceptably for simple current subscriptions, but it's very confusing for closed titles (canceled, ceased, title changes).
e.g. we have a title that has rolling 20 year backfile access + ceased in 2012. What our users now see is
Available until 2012 volume: 46 issue: 1
Most recent 20 year(s) available
Clearly both statements in the above cannot be true.
I'd like to add on to Jen's idea by asking that the statement not only be combined with other local coverage but also that the wording be made both simpler and more context specific: "Available from xx year(s) ago to ..." when local holdings have an end date, and "... to xx year(s) ago" when local holdings have a start date.
Ideally, in my example, I'd like to see
Available from 20 year(s) ago until 2012 volume: 46 issue: 1
Jen's example would look like this:
Available from 1923 to 12 year(s) ago