Stacey van Groll

My feedback

  1. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Primo » Analytics  ·  Admin →
    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  2. 46 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Primo » Analytics  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    It's disappointing that this idea has so few votes when Evidence-Based Practice is such a focus, and this is vital data on user engagement with different types of formats ie electronic vs physical.
    I have long contemplated putting in a submission for yet another gap of no actions recorded in Primo Analytics for View It services clicks.
    These are partially recorded in Alma Analytics for Link Resolver, but completely missing for any Link in Record links for either remote PCI/CDI or external local sources. So few votes here makes me think I shouldn't bother,but at the same time it amazes me that this gap hasn't been filled already as standard.

    Edit: I'll take the plunge, here's an idea for the View It clicks
    Primo Analytics - Add Actions for clicks on View It links, for both Link in Record and Link Resolver
    https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/41480614-primo-analytics-add-actions-to-be-recorded-for-c

    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  3. 86 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
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    We are very pleased that the use case expressed here was delivered in the September 2020 Release.

  4. 4 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Hi Nancy,

    I agree that this would be a great improvement, which should have parity for both Primo VE and Primo customers on Back Office.

    I have figured out a workflow to get more of the results quickly, which only takes a few minutes for a set of 150, which may be useful to you:
    * Select the checkbox at the top of the screen and then Choose Top 50
    * Click on the Pin icon and add a new Label for the set to distinguish it, eg 2020.3.19 Export
    * Use the pagination widget (bottom left) by middle circle to go to Page 6, which will refresh the top of the results set to start at No.51
    * Use the Load More Results button 4 times to load 50 more results to screen ie 50-100
    * Return to top and select the top checkbox to select all 50 results on screen
    * Click on the Pin icon and select the 2020.3.19 Export label
    * Repeat once more for No.100-150
    * Go to My Favourites > Saved Items
    * Choose the label of 2020.3.19 Export to filter the list of Saved Items
    * Click on the checkbox at the top of the list
    * The ellipsis icon will go from greyed out to clickable - Note: Be very careful not to select the Unpin icon right beside it, as this will immediately unpin all of the items with no warning and the process would need to be repeated
    * Select the chosen export option available, such as Email, Print, Export RIS, or Export Excel

  5. 42 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  6. 130 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
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    There's no label just for 'Primo', Lisbeth, as this enhancement channel was designed before Primo VE existed. It applies to all flavours of Primo regardless of deployment model. My impression is that it only needs a Primo VE tag if Primo on Back Office already has the functionality, but Primo VE does not. I have seen incorrect entries for this though, as someone on a Primo VE site might not know that a idea isn't possible in Back Office either.

    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  7. 309 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    13 comments  ·  Alma » Other  ·  Admin →
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  8. 31 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
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Have you considered use of the category tree? I understand completely if the submission is only for Subject headings, as would be found in the Subject facet in main Primo, but perhaps you might not be aware of the option to add a category tree. We use this for a curated list of subject categories and then have a second tier for 'Key Resources', as many other commenters have described as being desirable. This makes for a different search experience to main Primo, as offering our users a list designed just for a focus area for our university with databases chosen by the expert liaison librarian supporting that areas, which helps also to not just replicate the Primo search in two different places, as each offers a distinct feature.

  9. 2 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    There is a DataCite collection available for activation in Alma CZ for CDI. We don't have it active, but perhaps could meet your needs?
    Collection ID: 6114051530000041

  10. 3 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
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Hi Natasja, you should be able to do this by adding the AVA field for display. We have a local practice of using LC in the bib record and then adding a Local running call number at the holdings level when we shift items to our off-site Warehouse. So, a little different use than yours in open stacks. I've already had a Local Call Number field for display, but just from the 090 in the bib for resources without LC. To date I've only grabbed both the AVA and the 090 for search data, just in case it's the only information a user wrote down from a record, but am now adding the AVA also for display as well, so that it is included in the Excel Export.

  11. 38 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
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Has this really be labelled an 'enhancement' by Ex Libris?
    Surely this is just basic usability, which should be standard.

  12. 46 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Alma » Other  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Agreed - there should be holistic design as standard.

    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  13. 56 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Another use case: We have put this into place again for one of our Libraries, as part of our COVID-19 response, to ensure our collections remain visible, while still correctly marked as Unavailable by brief results availability and 'Temporarily unavailable' by Get It status.
    Alma should be flexible enough to allow library staff autonomy to display our records in this manner when we need it, in a quick and easy process, so that we don't have to co-opt another hardcoded process as a workaround.

    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  14. 3 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
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    I am going to remove my own vote from this, as this was actually fixed as a defect in the July 2020 Release (new case querying this: 00853757).
    I'm going to leave this here, rather than deleting it, as an example of the broad issue of Ex Libris incorrectly pointing customers to the Idea Exchange after labelling a case as an 'enhancement', when it was actually a bug that plagued our site for almost 5 years. We should have been supported with better troubleshooting and case handling soon after our 2016 Implementation when we first encountered the problem.

    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  15. 75 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Alma » Analytics  ·  Admin →
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  16. 6 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Hi Christian - welcome to our user community!
    Does the Primo VE Resource Recommender not meet this need? It is described as matching to exact query: https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Product_Documentation/020Primo_VE/050Other_Configuration/010Resource_Recommender_for_Primo_VE

  17. 247 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Stacey van Groll shared this idea  · 
  18. 785 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    18 comments  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Hi Federico,
    In that particular impact line, I am specifically referring to GES aka General Electronic Services, which is one option for adding the Unpaywall configuration to your environment, which is hidden when there is hardcoded Link in Record preferencing.
    This GES sits in the mashup as an 'Additional Service' or similar term, depending on if the display is View It or Get It for no holdings.
    This is the option we use for various reasons (see https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Community_Knowledge/How_to_%E2%80%93_Add_an_Unpaywall_General_Electronic_Service_to_Alma%2C_for_Open_Access_links_in_Primo).
    I think you might be referring instead to the version Ex Libris added in the November 2019 release, which displays only in the View It alongside all other electronic services, and does not display in the Get It no holdings.
    Although we don't use that version, which means I can't answer definitively, I would think logically that the same problem would apply there of the Link Resolver Unpaywall service link being overridden and hidden by the current hardcoded Link in Record preferencing.

    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Thank you for submitting this idea, Erin. UQ supports this idea wholeheartedly.
    We would ideally like a configuration option which allows us to control this preferencing, as we feel is best for our users.
    We should not have to deactivate full text collections and resources in order to restore our autonomy over the links, information, and services we present to our users.

    The reasoning for Link in Record hardcoded preferencing of presenting the most stable link is valid, but this sacrifices too many Alma functions and services which Libraries provide to our users, by eliminating our ability to surface these in Primo.
    Relaxing this preferencing for Open Access, rolled out in July 2020, regressed, and rolled out again in August 2020, does not go far enough.
    Ex Libris describes Link in Record collections as composing approx. 40% of collections, but they are also changing even more collections from Link Resolver to Link in Record, including almost all the JSTOR collections in the August CDI Collection List, with no other notice to the community.

    Impact log, many contrary to recently revised NISO RP-19-2020, Open Discovery Initiative: Promoting Transparency in Discovery (approved June 22, 2020)
    * supplementary features and value-added Additional Services are hidden, for example General Electronic Services supporting staff workflows such as OpenURL calls to external reading list management systems shown only to Library Staff by user group, help links for users to locally created web content offering expert guidance on navigating various ebook platforms and sharing accessibility assessments, and the Unpaywall Look for Open Access version option by DOI to support all users
    * only one static link is presented, rather than a full list of Link Resolver options, as failsafe options in the event of failure and also hides more options for users with limited privileges
    * removal of library autonomy in platform preferencing, with no option to present links in our configured preferred order as per Alma Online Services Order, as well as undermining efforts for sites to support linking neutrality
    * removal of library ability to present only certain access points over others in granular fashion when needed or desired, by preventing the use of Display Logic Rules to hide full text when other full text is available
    * no option to add Public Notes for user information, such as when it is known via staff information or user reports that the platform is experiencing an issue. This is a key direct communication channel between Libraries and our users, where we can support them by sharing temporary workarounds
    * no option for sites to use the Alma URL override options at the service level, when the platform is experiencing a problem. This is a vital workaround for sites to immediately implement corrections when metadata between the Alma CKB and CDI is mismatched or Ex Libris introduces regressions, so that our users are not further impacted with loss of direct access to resources while we open cases and wait for a defect fix
    * no option for sites to utilise Show License information, which includes locally configured options from Alma, with key information on our contractual obligations and limits of access. This is a loss not just for users but for our staff managing Document Delivery services who use this information directly in Primo as a quick workflow to determine if they can fill ILL requests from external institutions
    * static link collections are often problematic, such as only pre-print content, rather than final version
    * missing provider information from the link text for the destination, which libraries cannot control, use to find the source, and fix ie 'View full text in collection' dummy text, rather than advising a user which platform they will be sent to, and also removing their ability to choose
    * variable confusing behaviour when collections are restricted to authentication for search ie several Link Resolver options are presented when not logged in, and then upon logging in, the display changes to a static link (eg Westlaw)
    * Database Link in Record collections are made full text active in their entirety. For A&Is, the Link in Record then leads only to the abstract, hiding valid Link Resolver services to the full text. This is made worse by Ex Libris incorrectly marking some of these collections as CDI Type of Full Text Collection
    * user clicks on Link in Record static links are not recorded in either Primo Analytics or Alma Analytics. User clicks on Link Resolver services are recorded in Link Resolver Usage Alma Analytics, which is a valuable resource for correcting linking problems experienced by users without need for direct user report, and a valuable metric for libraries to report on engagement with Library electronic resources

  19. 163 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  20. 47 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
← Previous 1 3 4 5 6 7

Feedback and Knowledge Base
https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/users/195318681-stacey-van-groll
ideas.exlibrisgroup.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-40
301306
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:QGZSY3RDCNTOV5VK5S7H6RQMJJOZY2SP
<urn:uuid:53068c8b-4003-49c3-b995-be03cdd5deae>
2020-09-29T14:52:19Z
104.17.28.92
text/html
sha1:UGF7V6A5CXQ6MVEGEK5Q4HPNZMDTD6WL
<urn:uuid:d71b7dd6-2748-46ee-8d1d-085e23d4f394>
https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/users/195318681-stacey-van-groll
response
<urn:uuid:5cd689f3-1856-41aa-89e7-da8ae3cb7f65>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-40
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-59.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/