Skip to content
Innovative Idea Exchange

ILS - Polaris

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

116 results found

  1. During MARC import, other 02X fields (022, 024, 028) only match on $a, but 020s match on any subfield, including $z, which is supposed to invalidate the following ISBN. Is it possible to modify the match points for 020s so that they only match on $a?

    On a related note, just out of curiosity: in the MARC import settings, why are most match points referred to by field number (022, 1XX, etc.), but ISBN and UPC are referred to by name? (And wouldn't UPC already be covered by 024 $a, since the 024 match point doesn't look at indicators? Or…

    1 vote

    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. Right now, staff can only copy & paste diacritics from elsewhere into Leap, but they have no way of directly inputting them into cataloging data. The toolbar was able to do this, but Leap cannot.

    3 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. Current user experience shows a gap in the Authority Records search flow. After running an authority search in Leap and opening an individual record, users are unable to return to the original results list. The only available option is to close the record, which also closes the search, forcing users to re‑enter and re‑run the query. This creates unnecessary repetition and slows cataloging work.

    Proposed Enhancement (User‑Journey View):

    Add a “Results” button to Authority Record views—mirroring what already exists in Bibliographic Records.
    This allows catalogers to:

    Move seamlessly between multiple authority records that appear in a single search (for example,…

    3 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. Consider relocating the First Available Date information from the Source & Donor tab to the Statistics tab within the Item Record. When weeding materials, many libraries review the First Available Date alongside circulation statistics to evaluate item usage and age. Placing this field within the Statistics tab would streamline the workflow and reduce the need to navigate between tabs during the weeding process.

    4 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. Allow the 650 & 655 tags to be sorted alphabetically. When bringing in older MARC records there can be masses of duplicated headings. The ability to sort them alphabetically would make deleting them much easier.

    2 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. On bib / item records, display the release date of titles when the title is not yet released. This will remind users to not make books available when they are received but not yet released. This info might not be in the typical metadata bundle but would be very useful to have.

    6 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. There should be a preview or staging phase when importing new MARC records where you can see what duplicates are detected, and what action will be taken based on the profile selected, and have the option to manually override the actions on each record (e.g. don't replace this specific one - just create a second record instead)

    6 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 Sirsi, there was a quick option to post holdings to OCLC (for ILL holdings). In Polaris, we have to use OCLC Connexion and post the holding there for each item that is not automatic (like items from Ingram). This is not ideal, as it takes more steps to log into Connexion and find a good record (when we are already locating the record once from a remote database when we add the record in LEAP). It would be nice if there was an option to click to post the holding while cleaning up the record.

    5 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. When using the Search tool and searching a bibliographic record, it would be nice if the "Call Tag" column used the actual call tags my library creates and not the 082 field. This could be similar to the search for Item Record.

    2 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 great if there was an option for spell check or a grammatical check in the bibliographic record (especially the 520 field)- either that or it should be possible to run a spelling/grammatical error report.

    9 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. Currently, when I create a record set for authority records not connected to a bib record, and then try to delete multiple records, I get a pop-up that asks if I'm sure I want to delete the record even though it is attached to the record set (that I just created). I get this pop-up for EVERY authority record I try to delete, so if I delete 100 records, I will have to see this pop-up 100 times. There is no way around this currently and I'd like it to be fixed. It should be like deleting items in other…

    3 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. If you have a search filter saved as a default search (such as assigned branch saved, for example), but temporarily remove it for a search, then open a bib/item record, then go back to the search results, LEAP will go back to your default search with the filter applied instead of the one you just did with the filter removed. This doesn't appear to happen the other way around. If you don't have a filter saved as your default search, but apply one for a search and then go back to search results, your filter will still be present. Is…

    5 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)

    This will be fixed with the Find Tool changes coming in Polaris 8.1, which make the primary Find Tool remain open as a workform when results are opened. (I just tested on our in-dev QA environment).


    The only exception would be if you opened a bunch of results, closed the Find Tool, and then tried to return to results from one of the previously opened results. This triggers a brand new search in the Find Tool, which is why the defaults are re-applied.

  13. Add an optional free-text MARC editing mode to the Leap MARC editor that allows professional catalogers to directly edit bibliographic fields as plain text. Ideally, this would be toggleable at the record level, allowing staff to switch between the formatted MARC view and freetext view as needed.

    Leap's current MARC editor is great for copy cataloging, minimal edits, or non-professional staff. However, full-time professional catalogers are often frustrated by the inability to update multiple field at once, paste long blocks of MARC data or navigate through tags using the keyboard. For this type of workflow, Leap's editor is signficantly slower…

    39 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. Recently, Ingram sent us a MARC record that caused the record to both not show up in LEAP and not be available for API calls, so it didn't show up in our discovery layer either.

    It ended up being that there was an invalid character ([ERR] FOR XML could not serialize the data for node 'data()' because it contains a character (0x0019) which is not allowed in XML.) in the MARC record causing this.

    It would be helpful if Polaris would clean any incoming MARC record of characters it knows will cause issues.

    7 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. Currently, there is no way in the UI to bulk change item templates. They need to be edited one at a time. It would be great if these could be bulk changed just like item records.

    35 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. It's possible the Description and Comments configured for MARC validation display somewhere else already, but it would be nice if there were a couple of buttons to display that data in the MARC tooltips. The Description would be helpful for any tags that aren't used regularly or for staff with limited familiarity with MARC formats while the Comments could be useful in communicating local cataloging policies. Bonus points if we could allow staff with the appropriate permissions to edit the Description and Comments directly in the tooltip. It's not a particularly good example, but you could include something like "Please…

    7 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. In the client, you can do a bibliographic search by "standard identifier number" and it searches a bunch of different possible fields (the corresponding power search: (((ISBN="1234" OR ISSN="1234") OR (OSI="1234" OR STRN="1234")) OR (((PN="1234" OR CODEN="1234") OR OCN="1234") OR (SOA="1234" OR UPC="1234*")))). We would also like to see this option in Leap.

    Currently, staff don't get results for a scanned barcode unless they choose the correct field to search and the indicators in the record are properly set. This means they often get no results and incorrectly assume we don't have…

    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)
  18. On the All Items tab of LEAP bib records, it would be helpful to have page turning buttons at both the top and bottom of the list for ease of navigation

    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. Label printing can be a limited function in a large library system, using specialized printers to perform the task. Consistency is also important in the spine label. By being able to control access to this utility, it will ensure a better spine label product across a library system.

    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)
  20. Tab session visibility is unclear, leading to records being locked unknowingly by users.
    In addition to "hamburger" on upper left-hand side of the screen three horizontal lines.

    Please add Tab indicators or auto-close function when navigating away.

    14 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 6
  • Don't see your idea?