AdminTamar Fuches
(Alma product manager, Ex Libris)
My feedback
5 results found
-
123 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
133 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Thanks for posting this idea!
It looks the same as https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173/suggestions/45658426
Therfore I am merging the two ideas.Thanks,
Tamar Fuches
Alma product team -
126 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Thank you for proposing this idea.
We have a similar idea: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/36810652-using-load-portfolios-in-a-collection-to-update-poDo you think that adding the po line to portfolio loader is enough?
Thanks,
Tamar Fuches
Alma product teamAn error occurred while saving the comment Should this POL be added as the main order or as additional?
-
428 votes
Thank you for the suggested idea.
After reading it carefully, I understand that the main pain point here is the removal/fix of items already received.
To be more specific, the description of already received items should be updated to reflect the new pattern.
- Is this understanding correct?
- How often such change happens?
- Can you please add examples of the existing description and the needed update?
- Can the 'Update items using Excel load' CloudApp be utilized for fixing the description? see https://developers.exlibrisgroup.com/appcenter/item-updater-by-excel/
Thanks for the collaboration,
Tamar Fuches
Alma product
An error occurred while saving the comment Thank you Rebecca for this information!
So, the need is for items that were already created, but were not yet received.
Can the 'Update items using Excel load' CloudApp be utilized for fixing their description? see https://developers.exlibrisgroup.com/appcenter/item-updater-by-excel/Thanks,
Tamar -
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi David,
As part of https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173/suggestions/36206170 we are making the sort routine sticky in Items list - see attached.
Is this the same workflow, or you describe something else?Thanks,
Tamar
Hi Merav,
Thank you for submitting this idea!
I'd like to better understand the proposed solution.
Do you envision this as a configuration option within the Overlap job, or as an institution-level setting?
In addition, I'm wondering whether this should be configurable at all. Would it make more sense for Alma to always normalize partial dates? For example, treating 2026 as equivalent to 01/01/2026, while recognizing that it only partially overlaps with a date such as 01/11/2026.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, as well as input from others who may have experience with similar scenarios.
Thanks,
Tamar Fuchs
Alma Product Team