Skip to content

Andy (UCLA)

My feedback

17 results found

  1. 33 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Andy (UCLA) supported this idea  · 
  2. 24 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Andy (UCLA) supported this idea  · 
  3. 46 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Andy (UCLA) supported this idea  · 
  4. 17 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Alma » Analytics  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Andy (UCLA) commented  · 

    I 100% agree with this. Storage is cheap (even at Alma's scale), and the MARC record doesn't have an infinite number of fields or subfields. Being able to report on the full extent of data in our MARC records is important. Normalization rules in Alma are helpful, but there are times when we need to explore data in ways which Alma itself does not (and probably should not) support. Analytics is that tool.

    Andy (UCLA) supported this idea  · 
  5. 43 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    6 comments  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Andy (UCLA) commented  · 

    I absolutely agree with this idea, and was surprised to learn this problem exists. Example in our catalog:
    https://search.library.ucla.edu/permalink/01UCS_LAL/1763hao/alma9997032535706533

    The underlying MARC record has correctly linked 700/880 fields, with $6 showing the relation between each pair of fields. That relation should be preserved in the public display.
    I've added screenshots with the correct MARC display and the incorrect Primo VE display.

    Andy (UCLA) supported this idea  · 
  6. 75 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Andy (UCLA) commented  · 

    In addition to the reasons others have already listed, add sharing holdings data with others. Currently in Alma, we have to work around this by embedding specific holdings fields in bib records and publishing these, then either manipulating the output or expecting our partners to pull the holdings data out of these hybrid records.

    Alma APIs are an option for small data sets, but not suitable for projects involving tens or hundreds of thousands of records.

    Please allow us to export our holdings data in the standard MARC format.

    Andy (UCLA) supported this idea  · 
  7. 74 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Andy (UCLA) supported this idea  · 
  8. 17 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Alma » Other  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Andy (UCLA) supported this idea  · 
  9. 300 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    8 comments  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Andy (UCLA) supported this idea  · 
  10. 8 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Andy (UCLA) shared this idea  · 
  11. 135 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Andy (UCLA) supported this idea  · 
  12. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Andy (UCLA) shared this idea  · 
  13. 103 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Andy (UCLA) supported this idea  · 
  14. 4 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Andy (UCLA) shared this idea  · 
  15. 56 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Andy (UCLA) supported this idea  · 
  16. 110 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Andy (UCLA) supported this idea  · 
  17. 19 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Alma » Analytics  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Andy (UCLA) supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Andy (UCLA) commented  · 

    I agree. The data for number of records, start/stop times for jobs, who submitted the job - it's all visible in the Alma UI and can be retrieved from "Monitor Jobs -> History" for as long as the job reports are retained.

    Please add this data to Analytics, instead of requiring a manual review of each job to get the data which is not included in the "Monitor Jobs -> History" Excel export, like number of records processed.

    Thanks --Andy / UC Los Angeles

Feedback and Knowledge Base