Manu_Schwendener
My feedback
183 results found
-
58 votesManu_Schwendener
supported this idea
·
-
34 votesManu_Schwendener
supported this idea
·
-
103 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
82 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
In the NDE (available November 2025) you / the patrons 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
-
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
-
80 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.
-
12 votesManu_Schwendener
supported this idea
·
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
23 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.
-
47 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
This should be fixed
https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Release_Notes/002Primo_VE/2025/010Primo_VE_2025_Release_Notes?mon=202504BASE"April 2025 SF: 05305640, 05310473, 05319841, 05328486, 05330867, 06027317,06259460, 06755228, 06877607, 06989963, 07214655, 07807403
When filtering by a specific date (with months) in Advanced Search, out-of-range records are returned. This has been fixed." -
3 votes
-
144 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
What Jahn describes above leads to the following strange situation in our IZ, which is part of the same consortium.
We have deduplication deaktivated in our view.
In some cases, a link from 776 is created automatically, and works as expected
shows a link “Available in other form“, which links to this online version
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&search_scope=UBS&tab=UBS&docid=alma9972335550005504&lang=en&context=L&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&query=any,contains,education&facet=tlevel,include,available_p&facet=rtype,include,journals&offset=0The field responsible for this is a 776 $t
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/sourceRecord?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&docId=alma998305080105504&recordOwner=41SLSP_NETWORK776 08$iErscheint auch als Online-Ausgabe $tAnthropology & education quarterly
---
In many cases, we add a $x to the 776 field
https://ubs.swisscovery.slsp.ch/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&search_scope=UBS&tab=UBS&docid=alma99972970105504&lang=en&context=L776 08$iErscheint auch als $nOnline-Ausgabe $tRecht $x2504-1487
As we're in a consortium, all IZs see the same 776 fields. But that link only works in the IZs which _have_ the online version with ISSN 2504-1487.
What I would expect: that there is a check for this, and the link is not active, but the information stays visible, when the value in $x does not exist in the same IZ.
(Or, if that is not possible: 776 is hidden when the value in $x does not exist in the same IZ.)
What acutally happens: if no link via $x is possible, a title search is started.
Which leads to unusable results. Which means we had to suppress the display of all 776 with $x, also in the IZs where the link would work correctly.
This is an unsatisfying situation.
-
43 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
Manu_Schwendener
shared this idea
·
-
76 votesManu_Schwendener
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener
commented
We really miss something like this, see also https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/48220646-inform-patrons-about-pick-from-shelf
-
24 votesManu_Schwendener
supported this idea
·
-
57 votesManu_Schwendener
supported this idea
·
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.