Manu_Schwendener
My feedback
176 results found
-
195 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
117 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
> Please add "Discovery Administrator" to this list
Yes!
Manu_Schwendener
supported this idea
·
-
85 votesManu_Schwendener
supported this idea
·
-
58 votesManu_Schwendener
supported this idea
·
-
34 votesManu_Schwendener
supported this idea
·
-
104 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
Not exactly what you are asking for, but:
In the NDE (available November 2025) there will be facets in collection discovery and an additional list display option which shows author and year out of the box.
-
83 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
In the NDE (available November 2025) you can change the display to a list view which shows author and year out of the box.
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
This is one of the basic missing functions that I find difficult to accept.
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
+1
Plus 20 votes from the idea Rick links to, plus 8 from https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/34134457-add-library-pre-filter-to-primo-ve-advanced-search
-
62 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
In the NDE, this should get solved 2027H1
https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Product_Documentation/020Primo_VE/Primo_VE_(English)/Go_NDE/Available_Features%2C_Functionality_and_Release_Plan_for_NDE_UI#Monthly_Release_Plan"Support configuring the resource type top bar as a filter"
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
Related (although it doesn't bother me, personally): when the search scope slot is "CDI only", the facet for "Online" is visible, and clickable, although all CDI titles are online.
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
Screenshots for my earlier comment:
What I'm seeing versus what I should be seeing (= the active filter).
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
NERS 8872 Resource type filter bar: display active filter the same as active facets
Open for voting now.
I should not be seeing this
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/search?query=any,contains,filter&pfilter=rtype,exact,articles&tab=UBS&search_scope=UBS&vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&lang=en&offset=0An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
> This is even more important now with the new pre-search filters [October 2022]
and with the Resource Type Filter Bar, available since May 2023
-
103 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
Can this be set to Closed, to release the votes?
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
Statement by Ex Libris about
PENH-I-28389 Increase number of possible local search/facet fields to at least 20
"Primo 2025 Enhancements cycle: This submission will not be included in the second ballot by the following Product Management statement:
As discussed previously, the current default limit of 10 such fields was introduced intentionally. We observed that many institutions were using these fields - designed for more advanced use cases - instead of simpler and more lightweight alternatives such as local fields for display purposes or the 5xx/9xx fields, which can also be configured for display and search with significantly less overhead.
By setting a default limit of 10, we encourage institutions to evaluate whether a simpler approach might meet their needs before resorting to the more complex normalization rule option. That said, we recognize that some institutions do have legitimate use cases that require more than 10 normalized search fields. As confirmed in our product direction, institutions that need additional fields beyond the default can request an increase via a Support ticket, and these requests will be approved.
At this time, we do not plan to expand the out-of-the-box limit, as the current threshold meets the needs of most institutions while encouraging efficient configuration. However, we remain committed to accommodating specific needs through the existing request process."
-
95 votes
This is currently not planned to be developed. We might evaluate it again in the future.
Currently we are removing the "Under review" status.
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
Yael, maybe set this to "Closed" to free the votes?
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
Ex Libris statement about PENH-I-28340
"Primo 2025 Enhancements cycle: This submission will not be included in the second ballot by the following Product Management statement:
After internal discussions, including past considerations when this enhancement was raised in NERS, we've concluded that this request is extremely complex to implement.
The main challenge lies in the variety of search scopes and tabs involved (e.g., blended, local, CDI, entire network, and deep search in Primo). Merging these into a single query presents significant technical and functional complications. Additionally, each search element—such as queries, facets, and filters—would need to be handled and reconstructed independently.
Given the scope of changes required, as well as the high cost and risk involved, we will not be able to proceed with this enhancement.
In addition to the reasons for rejections mentioned before:
* High risk of query overload: Merging multiple saved searches—including their associated filters and facets—can easily result in overly long or complex queries that exceed Solr's processing limits. This may lead to degraded performance or 0 results returned.
* Non-trivial facet logic conflicts: Saved searches often include different facet selections (e.g., multiple formats, date ranges, resource types). Merging these requires defining how to combine conflicting or overlapping filters—something that's not intuitive and prone to producing unexpected results.
* Ambiguity in user intent: It's unclear whether merging should mean combining results (logical OR), narrowing them (logical AND), or applying some prioritization. Different users may expect different behaviors, making it hard to design a consistent and satisfying user experience.
* Unsupported edge cases and fallbacks: Supporting all combinations of filters, keywords, scopes, and search types would introduce a high number of edge cases. Handling fallbacks gracefully (e.g., if facets don't exist in all merged contexts) adds significant complexity.
* Disproportionate development cost vs. value: Given the above challenges, implementing this feature robustly would require major development effort for a feature likely to be used by a small subset of advanced users—many of whom may still find the results confusing or unreliable."
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
I think for this to work correctly, the patrons will need a way to turn FRBR off (https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/42531016-allow-patrons-to-disable-frbr-disable-frbr-in-ad).
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
PENH-I-28340, open for voting now.
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
NERS 8959, open for voting now.
---
Update 2.4.2024: place 4 in NERS, round 1
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
+1
-
68 votesManu_Schwendener
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
The ability to add logical sets from the NZ to our local search scope would be great for us.
-
433 votes
Hi all,
This idea was reviewed as part of planning 2026 roadmap, as the solution yet is not clear and we are still examining the possible solutions.
This kind of sorting is more complex as it involves free text values and it requires different sorting method than what currently being used.
This is currently not included in the 2026 roadmap.
We will continue evaluate the possible solutions.
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
A newer example:
How it should look:
https://www.merianverlag.ch/.imaging/cmv-w1200h1200-jpg-90/dam/268bd2a3-ebb5-443a-ab71-18922dd46aa0/SGB-Buchreihe-2289_1Ebene.jpgAn error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
Dear Yael, could we get an update on this?
Thank you and kind regards
ManuAn error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
For comparison see https://swisscollections.ch/Record/991057940819705501?sid=126841 (Alice's example), scroll to and open "Hierarchy / Context"
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
List of fields for which this change should be made. Others please add if something is missing.
MARC 21:
773 for analytica
- my example from July 12, 2024 on this page
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&search_scope=UBS&tab=UBS&docid=alma9972771758805504&lang=en&context=L
$gNo. 8 (2023) $gyr: 2023 $gno: 8Add the first $g in front of the title of the child entry:
No. 8 (2023) FashionUse the more normalized $g subfields for sorting
- Alice Robinson's example from April 2, 2022 in the older idea exchange entry
https://uzb.swisscovery.slsp.ch/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UZB:UZB&docid=alma990047977300205508&lang=en&context=L=> If there is a $q, use that for sorting (but the first $g for display)
Example
$gVolume 12, Number 2 (2020), 60 $gyr:2020 $gno:12 $q12/2/2020/60---
800 when the parent title has an author in field 100
- the Brecht example in post 1
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&search_scope=UBS&tab=UBS&docid=alma993707790105504&lang=en&context=L&isFrbr=true
- from an inquiry I got today:
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&tab=UBS&docid=alma996830890105504&lang=en&context=L---
810 when the parent title has a corporate name as author in field 110
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&tab=UBS&docid=alma9970764540105504&lang=en&context=L---
811 when the parent title has a congress name as author in field 111
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&tab=UBS&docid=alma9972827070905504&lang=en&context=L---
830 when the parent title doesn't have a 1xx field. This is the most common case = Series
Example https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&tab=UBS&docid=alma991036390105504&context=L---
From the older thread (https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/42926031-number-and-sort-the-volumes-in-multi-volume-works), posted May 28, 2024:
CNMARC field 200 subfield $h
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
Here's another exmple
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&search_scope=UBS&tab=UBS&docid=alma9972771758805504&lang=en&context=LHow it looks:
Related titles
Units : Construction
Units : Decoration
Units : Fashion
Units : Interiors
Units : Resources
Units : The plant-based issue[as long as it's alphabetical, "The" should not be used for sorting]
How it should look:
No. 4 (2021) The plant-based issue
No. 5 (2021) Decoration
No. 6 (2022) Resources
No. 7 (2022) Construction
No. 8 (2023) Fashion
No. 9 (2023) InteriorsAn error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
NERS 8869, open for voting now.
Rephrased for better understanding:
Related titles in Primo VE bib display: sort by enumeration
When records have bib-to-bib relationships via 76X-78X and 8XX, the list of related titles is displayed in the Details section of the series/host record. The list is currently sorted alphabetically by the title of the related bib.
Instead, we would like to be able to configure Alma so that Related Titles are sorted logically by sequence or volume.For example, the current display is:
Analyzed Title A vol. 3
Analyzed Title B vol. 1
Analyzed Title C vol. 2.We would like this sorted by volume instead:
Analyzed Title B vol. 1
Analyzed Title C vol. 2
Analyzed Title A vol. 3When related via field 773, titles should be sorted by $q (enumeration).
For all other related fields 76X-78X, titles should be sorted by $g (related parts).
8XX fields should be sorted by $v (volume/sequence).How it looks at the moment:
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&search_scope=UBS&tab=UBS&docid=alma993707790105504&lang=en&context=LHow it should be looking:
https://www.suhrkamp.de/werkausgabe/bertolt-brecht-werke-grosse-kommentierte-berliner-und-frankfurter-ausgabe-30-baende-in-32-teilbaenden-und-ein-registerband-leinen-w-17Manu_Schwendener
supported this idea
·
-
12 votesManu_Schwendener
supported this idea
·
-
52 votesManu_Schwendener
shared this idea
·
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
19 votesManu_Schwendener
supported this idea
·
-
18 votesManu_Schwendener
supported this idea
·
-
8 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
I agree that if you add a link behind your logo, you should also be able to describe where the link will lead.
> half the users expected the logo to go back to the main Primo VE search landing
> page rather ... (as many libraries have configured)This is the default - when you don't put an external URL behind the logo - and doesn't need configuration.
Plus 4 votes from https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/38816557-dark-mode-for-primo