Kate Webb

My feedback

  1. 38 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Kate Webb supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kate Webb commented  · 

    We have the same situation here, it is very confusing and unnecessary for the patrons to be able to trawl through hundreds of items for every volume and issue. Much better and perfectly adequate that they just see the holdings summary, as it used to be in our previous system. I notice you can only supress items from being viewed in Primo, according to their process type- but it would be so much more helpful if this option could be actioned by location.

  2. 15 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Kate Webb shared this idea  · 
  3. 4 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Alma » Analytics  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kate Webb commented  · 

    Definitely! This would save having to make 2 reports and cobbling them together, as is so often necessary with Analytics.

    Kate Webb supported this idea  · 
  4. 9 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kate Webb commented  · 

    An additional discovery is that where we have set an account to be blocked the same day an item is marked as 'Lost' (in order to mitigate loans being allowed following part-payments), this does not work in Alma. Although this does not appear to be documented anywhere, it seems that you can set items to be marked lost at, say, 21 days overdue, and a block to be applied also at 21 days overdue, but if you set both then the block simply doesn't get applied. The 'Block' option doesn't work once the item has been marked as Lost. So we are left with a dilemma as to how to prevent borrowing when the Lost item is still lost.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kate Webb commented  · 

    I totally agree Martin. the option of automating the addition of a block without the option of a mechanism to delete it, triggered by a status change, seems like an oversight.
    We have set it so that accounts are blocked at 21 days, at the same time as an item is declared Lost, and ideally would like the option for it to be deleted when the lost item is resolved. We have had to implement a workaround whereby a report is run each morning showing patrons with blocks but no longer any lost items on loan, and the blocks are deleted manually. it is a waste of staff time, but currently there is no alternative.

  5. 45 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Kate Webb supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kate Webb commented  · 

    An element of our waiving policy is to check that the patron has not already had several fines waived in the past, thus indicating a behavioural pattern which needs to be addressed. Currently the only way to check this is to view the resolution details of every individual fine, which is unacceptably time consuming at the front desk when there is a queue waiting. The transaction type for closed fines needs to be displayed in a column next to each closed fine so that all the waivers can be identified at a glance.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kate Webb commented  · 

    We don't use the Bursar system but would nevertheless find this option extremely helpful

  6. 21 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Alma » Analytics  ·  Admin →
    Kate Webb supported this idea  · 
  7. 7 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Kate Webb supported this idea  · 
  8. 34 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Kate Webb supported this idea  · 
  9. 37 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Alma » Analytics  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kate Webb commented  · 

    This would certainly be very useful. We have had a problem with notes duplications due to an issue with imports, and it we need to get a feel for the extent of the problem by creating a report of notes placed between certain dates. But the Notes date is not an option in analytics!

  10. 83 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Kate Webb supported this idea  · 
  11. 100 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kate Webb commented  · 

    We have also recently discovered that unless you add to this process 'waive replacement cost', then it will be added a second time if the claimed returned item is not found and needs to be marked as lost again, resulting in the user being charged twice for the same item.

    Kate Webb shared this idea  · 
  12. 117 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kate Webb commented  · 

    This would be very useful since once a requested item not found on the shelf is changed to missing status, it seems to simply disappear, leaving no evidence that it existed, and no notification to the patron.

  13. 105 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kate Webb commented  · 

    We also had notes migrated over, which we added each time we issued a temporary day pass, of which they are allowed two per year. We batch deleted these notes on 31st August every year, so that the students begin on 1st Sept with a 'clean slate'. This year we have had to delete thousands of notes manually, and it has taken the best part of the year to do it. Now we are using non-blocking blocks for the purpose, as they can be batch deleted. It'll be too late for us, but would prevent others migrating to Alma from having to go through this massive waste of staff time.

  14. 191 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kate Webb commented  · 

    This seems like a no brainer to me. We have lost double the usual amount of books this year since the introduction of auto renewals with Alma and it strikes me that this would go some way towards mitigating the problem. I would definitely vote for it if I had any spare votes.

  15. 121 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kate Webb commented  · 

    This would be especially useful since the 'merge patron accounts' feature planned for July 2019 has now been withdrawn

  16. 3 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Kate Webb shared this idea  · 
  17. 5 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Kate Webb supported this idea  · 
  18. 9 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kate Webb commented  · 

    We have had to change the header and content of this letter as we also do not change the due date when an item is recalled, so the subject 'change due date' was misleading in the case of recalls. It definitely needs to be split into two different notifications- one where the due date changes and another where it does not. But in the meantime we have called it, 'Library item due', in order to address both scenarios.

  19. 5 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Kate Webb supported this idea  · 
    Kate Webb shared this idea  · 
  20. 7 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Kate Webb supported this idea  · 
    Kate Webb shared this idea  · 
← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base