Carl Bidwell
My feedback
2 results found
-
20 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
93 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Carl Bidwell
commented
You’re right to flag this; merging those fields clearly creates room for data loss and misinterpretation, especially in real-world cases like non-contiguous page requests. Even if it’s “by design,” it doesn’t fully reflect how patrons actually use the form. Keeping the “From” and “To” fields separate on the lending side would preserve intent much better, or at the very least, concatenating both inputs during the merge would avoid dropping important details. Another option could be introducing a dedicated “page notes” or “custom ranges” field to capture these edge cases more explicitly. Small change, but it would save a lot of back-and-forth and improve request accuracy overall.
This is a really well thought-out set of suggestions; especially around visibility and transparency. The lack of clear failure indicators and notifications makes troubleshooting unnecessarily reactive, and the “In Progress” status for failed jobs is definitely misleading. I particularly like the idea of more granular batching and clearer indexing timestamps, since that would help isolate issues much faster and avoid the ripple effect of one bad file impacting everything. Even basic logging or short-term retention of error details would go a long way in reducing back-and-forth with support. Improvements like these would make the whole process feel far less like guesswork and more like a manageable workflow. Funny enough, I came across a similar discussion on process transparency while browsing https://eaguaranteedrent.co.uk/; different domain, but the same need for clearer status and reliability really stood out.