Skip to content
Innovative Idea Exchange

ILS - Polaris

JUMP TO ANOTHER FORUM

  • Hot ideas
  • Top ideas
  • New ideas
  • My feedback

91 results found

  1. Similar to the compare feature for bibliographic records, please implement a compare feature for authority records. This would be helpful when editing authority records in Leap.

    28 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  2. Currently item bulk change functionality allows staff to bulk change fields that they can't change in individual item records. This allows staff to modify item records using bulk change when they're blocked from modifying directly in the item record. The same permissions should apply to bulk change:

    • Item records: Modify cataloging view
    • Item records: Modify source and acquisitions view
    • Item records: Modify reserves view
    • Item records: Modify history view

    The library feels this is a data security risk. Fundamentally, here is the question: what is the purpose of the permission Item records: Modify cataloging view?

    If…

    52 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  3. We would like the ability to compare bibliographic records in Leap with ones from an outside source, like z39.50. This is a key part of our cataloguing process and is a necessary piece to moving those staff members over to Leap.

    22 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  4. Currently, Bulk Change allows staff to replace existing information in free-text fields, and add to the beginning or end of the field in some cases. However, existing text cannot be edited.

    For example, if a group of item records need the volume numbering changed from “v.” to “vol.,” Bulk Change cannot update all the items if they have different volume numbers. Staff have to replace “v. 1” with “vol. 1,” then do all the v. 2s, then v. 3s, and so on. Similarly, if a library discovers that some of its records have incorrect diacritics, each word must be changed…

    44 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  5. Create a recall function that is separate from the holds queue so Technical Services can get items back (for relabeling, for weeding, etc.). Technical Services often use internal cards to place holds on a specific barcode. This sometimes work, but has a few drawbacks:
    1. The hold disrupts circulation (renewals, other holds, potentially in-transit)
    2. If the item goes into a status that cannot fulfill holds (e.g. item becomes LOST), the holds will go back the queue and be reassigned to another item on the bib. Technical Services usually needs the specific barcode, not just any item on the bib.

    38 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  6. The desktop client has the ability to send a record set to Label Manager; Leap does not. Without this feature, mass relabelling projects such as adding a new section are an enormous drain on staff time.

    23 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  7. If you are adjusting the column settings for Leap, the list of available options is not in alphabetical order. This makes it easier to overlook what options might be available to select.

    As a former page, please put this in alphabetical order OR make the list filterable/searchable.

    25 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  8. In the Client, there are undo and redo buttons. The undo button is particularly useful when someone has made a mistake. It quickly allows staff to correct the mistake by pressing a single button. When training technical services staff to use Leap, this button is clearly missed. Having this button will make the transition to Leap easier. Questions and comments about the lack of the undo button are common during training.

    66 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  9. It would be nice if the Leap Find Tool window could be enlarged to full screen.

    16 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  10. It would be really helpful for fixing rollups if you could pick records to compare directly from the Find Tool instead of opening one record and then running a search again to find records to compare!

    24 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  11. In item records, the shelf location drop-down menu only lists the shelf locations for the assigned branch or owning branch. However, the shelf location drop-down menu in the item bulk change work form lists the shelf locations for all libraries in the consortium. Many of these shelf locations are similar. It can make it easy to choose the wrong one by mistake. Here are some examples:

    “Graphic Novel” vs. “Graphic Novels”
    “Adult New DVD / Blu-ray” (with spaces) vs. “Adult New DVD/Blu-ray” (no spaces) vs. “Adult New DVDs/Blu-Rays.”

    The item bulk change workform should be updated so that the shelf…

    47 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  12. We use ChiliFresh as a source for cover images and we also use their service to upload custom images for missing covers, kits, etc. After the MARC record is updated with the custom image tag, the new image shows up in the PowerPAC immediately. However, it never shows up in Leap. Leap is already pulling images from ChiliFresh (as well as other sources) for the cover images in Leap's item and bib records. It's really weird that it doesn't pull from the same source to get the custom image attached to the record.

    13 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  13. I don't know if this is already planned for a future version; I didn't see it on the current roadmap, though. It's really important for cataloguers that they be able to save a bib record without having to make a change first, particularly for provisional bib records. The only way to make a provisional record become final is to resave it, and currently, Leap requires you to make a change in any bib record before saving it. I know the duplicate detection without saving is now available, and that's a great feature - but allowing at least provisional bib records…

    19 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  14. Currently, the only option for importing a file with bibliographic data into a record set in Leap is by ISBN. It would be helpful for staff to have the option to be able to use UPC as well, as ISBN restricts this to just books and audiobooks. This leaves out DVDs and Blu-rays, as well as other non-book/audiobook material such as a Library of Things.

    25 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  15. Enhance operational efficiency and standardization by allowing the saving of Leap power searches beyond individual staff profiles. Currently, saved power searches reside only at the personal level, hindering consistent workflows and leading to duplicated effort. Enabling system- or library-level saving for power searches will allow libraries to establish shared, robust searches, improving consistency and ensuring critical search capabilities remain accessible regardless of staff changes.

    13 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  16. Add the ability to add a 006 or 007 field to records via bibliographic bulk change in Leap. Leap has the ability to edit existing fixed fields via bulk change and the staff client offers the ability to add a new 006 or 007 via bulk change, so this would be part of bringing Leap into parity with the staff client. Bib records that come in from OCLC often lack the exact fixed field coding requires to display the correct Type of Material in Polaris so the ability to add missing fields via bulk change in Leap will make cataloging…

    22 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  17. Catalogers have been waiting since January 2020 for MARC field 532 - Accessibility Note to be included in the MARC bibliographic validation table. This MARC change was approved by LC in 2018 and has been showing up in AV records ever since. Catalogers see a "not defined" error message when saving a record which includes an unvalidated field.

    Currently we may only add a local MARC tac to the validation table (eg 9XX, X9X or XX9). Otherwise, it must wait for the LC MARC bibliographic update to be implemented by Polaris development in a new Polaris version. We now hear…

    16 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  18. Currently, if I want to add series information for a book in the item record when I link it, I would need to put it in the volume field. It'd be nice if there was an easy way to indicate if a book is part of a series and where it falls in the series without it creating a super long call number. Series info isn't standardized when it comes from publishers and isn't always included in the MARC record. This does make a difference for my patrons to know if a book is part of a series and would…

    17 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  19. Adding the $2 validation opens the door to using so many controlled thesauri, like Spanish headings via Queens and National Library of Spain, OLAC's video game headings, Homosaurus' headings, and many more that would make searching easier for customers and staff by providing access points that mimic how they talk about their interests and information needs.

    It would be a step closer towards inclusion by using various existing vocabularies that institutions want to use, unlock more potential of the ILS, as well as improve authority maintenance overall.

    17 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  20. Make full-screen editing more easily usable. One example: deleting multiple fields at once.

    Make it possible to add fields ANYWHERE, not only after a similar type of field (i.e. fixed fields--why can't I add them anywhere?).

    8 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
← Previous 1 3 4 5
  • Don't see your idea?