Bettina Kaldenberg

My feedback

  1. 12 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Bettina Kaldenberg supported this idea  · 
  2. 676 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Bettina Kaldenberg supported this idea  · 
  3. 270 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)

    We are considering adding the ability to limit editing both for templates and rules. We are considering that users with cataloging administrating roles will be able to lock specific templates and rules. Will it address your needs?

    Bettina Kaldenberg supported this idea  · 
  4. 559 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Bettina Kaldenberg commented  · 

    After some thought and discussion I am not clear if sort by relevancy as the first sorting criterium is the correct starting point. Since relevancy is built on a range of internal decisions, it is not likely that many records will have the exact same relevancy rating. Sorting them then according to a secondary sort criterium is not going to be much help.
    On the other hand I can see the use case where for example a student wants to get an overview about the text book collection and sorts the list by publication year. Then 2018, 2017 etc. is going to be sorted internally by relevancy, where in this case a sort by author or title would make more sense.
    Now, does this reasoning make sense to others? Or can you provide a use case (maybe even pointing to your library's Primo) where first sorting relevancy / second sorting anything else can be demonstrated more clearly?

Feedback and Knowledge Base