Skip to content

Oki U.

My feedback

12 results found

  1. 128 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)
    Oki U. supported this idea  · 
  2. 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)
    Oki U. supported this idea  · 
  3. 19 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)
    Oki U. supported this idea  · 
  4. 10 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
    Oki U. commented  · 

    Alma’s import functionality currently includes the option "Do not override/merge a record with lower brief version", which ensures that an incoming record is not imported if its brief level is lower than that of the matched record in Alma.

    We would like to see this functionality extended to enable handling multi-matches automatically. Currently, when an incoming record matches multiple existing records in Alma, the import process still flags this as an multi-match issue to be reviewed, even if all matched records in Alma have a higher brief level than the incoming record. These cases must then be resolved manually by staff, despite the fact that the incoming record could be rejected automatically based on its brief level.

    To support this, a checkbox like "Discard lower brief level record automatically" could be added to the "Automatic Multi-Match Handling" section under the "Match Profile" tab in an import profile. This would reduce the number of manual staff interventions and increase efficiency in working with Alma for metadata specialists.

    Oki U. shared this idea  · 
  5. 2 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)
    Oki U. shared this idea  · 
  6. 11 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)
    Oki U. shared this idea  · 
  7. 25 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)
    Oki U. shared this idea  · 
  8. 148 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)

    I wonder if this request takes into account that certain fields in the 1XX/6XX/7XX have different first indicator definitions in the MARC21 standard for Bibliographic fields compared to their corresponding Authority fields. In such cases, copying the first indicator from the Authority to the Bibliographic heading would result in incorrect data. Is the reqeust is about Names only? Hans, I would recommend consulting with AAFG group for a details spec where this requested behavior is valid to which fields.

    Oki U. supported this idea  · 
  9. 14 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

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

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Oki U. supported this idea  · 
  10. 3 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
    Oki U. commented  · 

    I recently found out that the facet in the authority search can be fixed by clicking on the double arrow (see screenshot)

    Oki U. shared this idea  · 
  11. 67 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)
    Oki U. supported this idea  · 
  12. 64 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)
    Oki U. supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base