Anonymous
My feedback
13 results found
-
42 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous supported this idea ·
-
41 votes
Anonymous supported this idea ·
An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous commented
Any field that is important enough to be included in the database should be fully accessible, that is, present for searching, for exporting, for Analytics, etc. It is not correct that each separate field needs to have an enhancement request before it is fully functional!
-
235 votes
Anonymous supported this idea ·
-
84 votes
Anonymous supported this idea ·
-
50 votes
Anonymous supported this idea ·
-
25 votes
Anonymous supported this idea ·
-
406 votes
Anonymous supported this idea ·
-
159 votes
Anonymous supported this idea ·
-
206 votes
Anonymous supported this idea ·
An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous commented
This request needs to be amended to include all relevant MARC fields, 600, 610, 611, 630, 650, and 651 second indicator 0. I assume this is an out of the box feature. Surely other libraries in other parts of the world might want other vocabularies as their default subject browse?
-
59 votes
Anonymous supported this idea ·
-
61 votes
Dana Moshkovits responded
Clarification was provided regarding the functionality requested – which is not to delete portfolios but rather detaching portfolios from the collection and setting them as standalone portfolios.
Re-opening the idea.An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous commented
Also appearing as NERS 2022 number 7768.
Anonymous supported this idea ·
-
46 votes
Anonymous supported this idea ·
-
88 votes
Anonymous supported this idea ·
Any field that is worth including in the database should be fully functional, that is, you should be able to search it, make reports on it, export it, have it be included in Analytics.