Anonymous
My feedback
140 results found
-
31 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
44 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
68 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
91 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
23 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
22 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
23 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
23 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
5 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
162 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
47 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
351 votes
Could you please clarify whether this request refers to communication between consortia (Network Zone) members regarding their shared data?
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
116 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
18 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
113 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
105 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
72 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
210 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
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
128 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
11 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
We have the same problem. The situation is very frustrating for librarians and patrons.