Nancy Babb
My feedback
55 results found
-
1 voteNancy Babb
shared this idea
·
-
2 votesNancy Babb
shared this idea
·
-
11 votesNancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
146 votes
Thank you for this idea. We are currently reviewing the option to allow configuration of the "Course information" field.
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
shared this idea
·
-
11 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
Boosting newer and especially the current edition is really needed -- institutions are trying all sorts of work arounds to make these editions more prominent for users (ex: added to Resource Recommenders). A simpler and more comprehensive approach would help the users greatly.
Nancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
The Primo BO documentation for Resource Recommender clarifies that, "For the highest ranked resource type, the system reserves the first two recommendation slots on the Brief Results page. For example, if the Database resource type has the highest ranking and has two matching recommendations, both of its recommendations will display in the first two slots. The third and last slot will be filled by the first matching recommendation from the next highest ranked resource."
(see https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Product_Documentation/Primo/Back_Office_Guide/115Resource_Recommender)
We REALLY need to change this! For so many of our recommended Databases and Guides, there is more than one entry per tag, and so with great frequency only 2 types of Recommenders are displayed. This is TERRIBLE -- because the 3rd type of Recommender is then always hidden, and our users don't even know it's there. Our Primo Analytics for Resource Recommenders confirm this problem, with use of all other Recommenders severely lower than the top 2.
I can not think of any reason why 2 from any type of recommender would have to be displayed by default. Why was this limitation put in place? Why can't institutions change it?Nancy Babb
shared this idea
·
-
92 votes
This is to update that this idea is currently under review (also as part of NERS voting - 8258).
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?
Nancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
19 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
Note that Primo BO (not VE) includes numerous Resource Recommender Enrichments; see: https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Product_Documentation/Primo/Back_Office_Guide/115Resource_Recommender
These Enrichments should be available in VE as well, and would address at least some of these issues.An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
We would appreciate the ability to enable "fuzzy" or expanded matching within Resource Recommender, for example, matching "&" with "and" and ignoring punctuation. We currently have to add multiple tags to cover all variations upon which a user might search, which is extremely time-consuming and cumbersome.
Nancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
12 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
With the recent (2022) enhancements to Resource Recommender functionality, adding Banner type and introducing "display always" functionality -- is there a possibility that sorting/relevancy display options will also be enhanced?
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
It would be great if we could even designate, say, the top 3 priority resources, so that we could ensure which resources would be displayed in the brief results list, with other resources then available in the "See all suggested resources" window.
Nancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
We would also appreciate improved management options for user tags. The ability to approve/reject would be very helpful. A related improvement might be the ability to limit creation by user group.
Nancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
145 votesNancy Babb
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
I agree that this is a very significant problem!
-
39 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
This functionality would be a terrific enhancement to Collection Discovery; it would allow us to embed contact info, links to additional resources, links to additional Primo search results or other collections, simple text styling, and span classes for more advanced styling. These (and other) capabilities would really boost the functionality and display of the Digital Collections!
Nancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
173 votes
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
·
-
16 votesNancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
46 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
Being able to display additional text in the description would add terrific value to the banner! The current default does not provide quite enough space to share enough info with users -- this proposal would really improve the functionality and improve the experience of the user.
Nancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
25 votesNancy Babb
shared this idea
·
-
1 voteNancy Babb
shared this idea
·
-
169 votesNancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
10 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
Agreed that the current collapsed display does not provide enough contextual information for the user.
-
55 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
Re: FRBR Preferred allowing patrons to get to the title they are looking for with only a few clicks --
Just a quick caveat that this works if there is only a single title that matches the patron's search criteria, but any 2nd, 3rd, etc. matching work would still be lost in the FRBR group. And I worry in that case that the patron would mistakenly believe that only one match exists.An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
I've been interested to find some examples of discovery tools that put FRBR options in the hands of the end user. For example, WorldCat Discovery has "Group this search" settings, with option to enable/disable "Group related editions" and "Group variant records." Here's an example and screenshot from my university: https://buffalo.on.worldcat.org/search?queryString=iliad%20lattimore&clusterResults=true&groupVariantRecords=false&changedFacet=scope&scope=sz%3A36346
It would be so exciting and helpful to our researchers if similar controls could be provided in Primo, for the FRBR settings!
In one of our Sandbox test views, I've added an External Search option to "Search without grouping," which sends the terms searched into a near-duplicate view with FRBR suppressed (https://suny-buf-psb.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,hamlet%20olivier&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=MyInstitution&vid=01SUNY_BUF:catalog&lang=en&offset=0) -- but this is not a good solution because it requires the campus to maintain a separate view. But if the FRBR settings could be easy user-controlled toggles (like "Expand My Results" and "Search in Full Text", this would be a great solution.
Is there any update on the status of this request? We're wondering about the "Under Review" notation before we submit NERS request for 2023. Thanks!