Nancy Babb
My feedback
43 results found
-
1 voteNancy Babb
shared this idea
·
-
23 votesNancy Babb
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment -
51 votes
Hello,
We will check with Factiva and review if technically we can add the CDI fields.
Kind regards,
Tamar Ganor
Content Product Manager
Nancy Babb
shared this idea
·
-
34 votesNancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
To underscore the impact this has on access, we have indeed discovered that links for some content may never be displayed, in Newspapers Search nor Primo search. If a Link Resolver electronic collection has CDI setting "Yes, Newspapers search only", links for any content that is also held in a Link in Record collection will not be displayed anywhere. The Link Resolver links won't be displayed in Newspapers Search records because they are blocked by the Link in Record links, and the records themselves are not included in Primo Search results, so of course no links there.
Nancy Babb
shared this idea
·
-
44 votesNancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
81 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
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.
Nancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
1 voteNancy Babb
shared this idea
·
-
169 votesNancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
213 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
·
-
116 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
·
-
298 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
·
-
44 votesNancy Babb
supported this idea
·
-
15 votesNancy 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?
-
203 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
·
-
100 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Nancy Babb
commented
This simplification would indeed be very helpful!
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!).