Marilou Hinchcliff
My feedback
14 results found
-
69 votesMarilou Hinchcliff
supported this idea
·
-
10 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Marilou Hinchcliff
shared this idea
·
-
56 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Marilou Hinchcliff
commented
We indicate at the status level whether a book is At Bindery or waiting to go to the bindery (in which case the patron is allowed to use the book), Primo doesn't display either so no one can tell if the book is actually available, or knows it's at the bindery so won't be available for a while, or what the problem is. Status level display labels would be a huge help in discovery.
Marilou Hinchcliff
supported this idea
·
-
21 votesMarilou Hinchcliff
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Marilou Hinchcliff
commented
Or, alternatively, add the ability to limit by NOT operators, as in DOES NOT CONTAIN KEYWORDS and PERMANENT PHYSICAL LOCATION DOES NOT EQUAL etc. so we don't have to specify every location except the one we don't want.
-
140 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Marilou Hinchcliff
commented
And yes we could just open Templates, Holdings, Shared, [the one we want to use]--but that's 3 more clicks than Add Holdings. It's bad enough we have to copy and paste the call number into the holdings record because it doesn't pull it from the open bib record.
An error occurred while saving the comment Marilou Hinchcliff
commented
And now we have the issue of one of our student assistants creating bibs and holdings records for the campus Toy Library in another building using a default Toy Library holdings template, and one of our staff needing to add another copy of a book to a different location in OUR library but when she click Add Holding in the MDE the default Toy Library template populates with the wrong EVERYTHING. If she changes the default, the student can't do her work over in the Toy Library--and the student doesn't have the user role to allow her to change the default back to what she needs.
Marilou Hinchcliff
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Marilou Hinchcliff
commented
The Change Physical Items job/Change location creates a new holdings record BASED ON THE DEFAULT SELECTED IN THE METADATA EDITOR. So if one staff member is running such a job and others are cataloging/creating holdings records but with different default values such as call number type, they can't both do their work at the same time. Or when one staff member is cataloging materials for one location and/or call number type and another is cataloging for another location and/or call number type, they can't both do their work at the same time. THIS NEES TO BE FIXED!!!!!!
-
57 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Marilou Hinchcliff
commented
The existing reverse order is just one of the annoying, confusing, and unhelpful instances of Alma listing/displaying information in he reverse order from that in the bibliographic record/reverse order of creation. I support this idea 100%.
Marilou Hinchcliff
supported this idea
·
-
14 votesMarilou Hinchcliff
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Marilou Hinchcliff
commented
A facet to narrow by local electronic collection (and maybe by CZ collection as well) is also desirable. We want our students to be able to limit their results to online gov docs.
-
40 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Marilou Hinchcliff
commented
This idea is identical to another one I just voted for--can they be merged?
-
34 votesMarilou Hinchcliff
supported this idea
·
-
59 votesMarilou Hinchcliff
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Marilou Hinchcliff
commented
This is needed for ALL types of records--items, holdings, and bibs. Reporting out withdrawn items in Analytics is worthless to us because it includes items or holdings or bibs that we deleted (because they were added by mistake) rather than withdrawn from the collection.
-
33 votesMarilou Hinchcliff
supported this idea
·
-
13 votesMarilou Hinchcliff
supported this idea
·
-
20 votesMarilou Hinchcliff
shared this idea
·
-
10 votesMarilou Hinchcliff
shared this idea
·
This is similiar to idea https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/35181883-please-provide-the-way-of-knowing-the-real-pol-cre We need to be able to see who on our staff has created or modified any record in Alma even when records are created via import profiles or a job. The staff have to log in to use these functions, so it should be possible to link that log in to the operations they do in order to identify who created or modified a record via any mechanism, singly or in bulk.