Nancy Babb
My feedback
43 results found
-
82 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
1 voteNancy Babb
shared this idea
·
-
163 votesNancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
204 votes
Hi Elizabeth, Katie, and everyone,
Thanks so much for sharing this idea!
From what I understand, it includes two main parts:
- Allowing institutions to edit the list of values in various fields, with a specific example being the “Implemented Authorization Method” field.
- Adding more fields and making them reportable in Analytics, along with a request for a flexible mechanism to support this.
Regarding the second point — adding a flexible mechanism is quite a complex change and could impact the timeline.
If you can point out around three specific fields that are most important to add first, it might be easier.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
Thanks again,
Tamar
Nancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
79 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
We maintain more than one view and agree that this would be an extremely helpful enhancement.
-
71 votesNancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
276 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
The enhancement request placed #18 in the first round of 2025 Primo enhancement voting https://enhancements.aha.io/shared/7346c83000931b6ca4a85cbb0b61602b
The top 20 vote recipients are currently (through June 6) under review and difficulty pointing by Ex LibrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
Alma is a solution for staff, perhaps, but not for end users; their only access is via Primo.
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
It was included on this year's NERS ballot but alas didn't make it through; it was not even in top 20. But it is indeed possible in Primo BO with the AVA field, and not possible in Primo VE (which doesn't use that field) so it's a parity issue. Perhaps it could be addressed as such?
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
Our researchers are looking for the ability to include call number in the Excel file export, so that they have quick reference to location within the libraries. We would support it being added, based on this user need.
Nancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
47 votesNancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
67 votesNancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
43 votesNancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
15 votesNancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
25 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
Knowing which Recommender Entries have been used would be hugely helpful -- it would be so great and make so much sense if this could be a part of the Primo Customized Values Usage analytics. I hope, too, that this functionality is already available or being added to the new NDE MixPanel analytics (please!).
Nancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
95 votes
This is currently not planned to be developed. We might evaluate it again in the future.
Currently we are removing the "Under review" status.
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
The related NERS request in 2024 was rejected for development in Primo BO or Primo VE with the note: "after careful consideration, we have determined to reject this enhancement due to its complexity and challenges, also in light of the upcoming NDE, we prefer to prioritize it to NDE (rather than Primo BO). We encourage you to resubmit this enhancement again in the future so it can be re-evaluated with the NDE."
Is this functionality currently being considered for the NDE or will it in fact need to be resubmitted, presumably no earlier than 2026, since the NDE won't be fully delivered in time for NERS 2025.An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
This idea seems to be a duplicate with https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/31656826-combining-searches-from-search-history-into-a-new
If so, could they be merged to combine votes?An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
This idea seems to be a duplicate with https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/41935075-combine-search-sets
If so, could they be merged to combine votes?An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
Is this the same as https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/31656826-combining-searches-from-search-history-into-a-new -- so that the votes could be combined?
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
This proposal was not approved in NERS 2022, but there has also been no update from Ex Libris on this Idea Exchange proposal since March 2020, when additional information was requested. Can Ex Libris please confirm whether more information is still needed, and what the status is? Thanks!
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
Are more examples and use cases still needed?
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
As a very simple example, I may search for some broad topics, like "therapy dogs" and "stress relief" -- and after searching realize that what I actually want is resources related to "therapy dogs" and "stress relief", especially if I find that I get a great number of results with either single search, possibly including non-relevant results. It would be a great time saver to simply be able to combine these two searches via selecting them in Search History and using a boolean operator. (Alternately, one could also opt to include multiple searches with few results via this method.) An indication of the number of results included in each search result would indeed be helpful, too.
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
I found some ProQuest documentation on "How to Combine Two or More Recent Searches" https://support.proquest.com/articledetail?id=kA1400000008WjbCAE that may be illustrative.
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
An example of use case is the ability for users to combine their searches in new and different ways; for example, building iterative searches, being able to most efficiently narrow and manage searches. The current functionality mentioned (selecting multiple facets, using advanced search) all require pre-coordination of searching, so a user who wishes to add complexities or refine criteria will always have to re-start the search from scratch. Combining searches is a more sophisticated and efficient and fairly common tool. Are more specific examples required?
-
204 votes
AdminAdina Marciano
(Admin, Ex Libris)
responded
Thank you for the suggested idea. We see its value and will consider it in the future. This development requires integration with third-party providers, and we will need to investigate the possibility of this development.
Nancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
97 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
This simplification would indeed be very helpful!
-
12 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
It would be great and very helpful to our users if this enhancement could be incorporated into NDE development.
Nancy Babb
shared this idea
·
-
99 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
From recent testing in our Primo VE instance, it seems like for us the language facet and pre-filter work well enough (or relatively so) with Alma records, but it's CDI where the function doesn't seem to work at all. And of course part of the challenge of troubleshooting in CDI is that we can't see what fields are responsible for a problem. In some records, the CTO suggests that the language value may be coming from a field like rft.place, but in many others, there's no sign of the language being filtered within the metadata or full text. Maybe it's coming from metadata in merged records we can't see? Regardless, this is a major problem for researchers who need to either filter out content they can't read or limit to content within their specific language of choice. Can nothing be done about this? It does clearly seem to be a bug that requires development attention and not suitable for enhancement or idea exchange.
Nancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
36 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
I continue to support this Idea and would like to re-open it.
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
It is also very difficult for users who may craft an Advanced Search in Primo blended scopes and then use the Newspapers Search facet expecting to send this Advanced Search into Newspapers -- who then find that their search terms have not been passed to Newspapers but instead lead to a blank search box in Newspapers. This illustrates for us that users are trying to accomplish Advanced Searches for Newspaper content, so it would be extremely helpful for this functionality to be supported.
Nancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
199 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
Please re-open this idea; it has 80 votes.
Nancy Babb
shared this idea
·
-
28 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
Here is a correction regarding fields 111 and 711; the Relator term in not in $e for 111/711 as it is for 100/110/700/710 -- for 111/711, the Relator term is in $j. Having said that, I think the most crucial need is for the removal of the $e relator terms from 100/110/700/710. I will defer to others who work more with Conference headings for their expertise on the 111/711 fields. Thanks!
Nancy Babb
shared this idea
·
We would like to select the number of links to be displayed initially to maintain consistency with our web design. In our user testing, we have consistently found that too many navigational links like this are very confusing to users, causing many users to simply ignore them. We want to limit the initial display to our top priorities, with all the other links moved to More. This seems like an area in which all institutions could benefit from the ability to customize per their own needs.