Skip to content
Idea Exchange

ILS - Polaris

JUMP TO ANOTHER FORUM

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

49 results found

  1. In the staff client, we can set a default file for a particular import profile. When that import profile is used, the file is already selected and we don't have to search for it. We'd like this same thing in Leap, but currently aren't able to set a default file and have to search for it every time.

    Idea Value
    This would prevent having to search for the exact same file every time when importing. It would save time, is more efficient, and already works well in the staff client.

    33 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. The process for deleting authorities is very time intensive. The process should work like deleting item or bib records and allow for not being notified for blocking/non-blocking notes. There should also be a default for how to handle deleted authorities, flip, unlink, etc. This would make the process much easier and quicker.

    Idea Value
    This would be a huge time saver for staff.

    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)
  3. I often get requests to have a pop-up for staff when last copy, or more especially a last copy with a hold, gets put into a status like withdrawn, missing, etc. It could provide a big head's up to selectors so they could preemptively tackle.

    Idea Value
    This would provide better customer service. Last copies with holds that were being discarded, etc. could be more immediately addressed to order replacement, contact patron, or submit to ILL.

    79 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 in Leap there is no equivalent Bibliographic Title search to the "Exact match (implicitly truncated)" in the Polaris Client. The Leap search "Bibliographic>BasicSearch>Title>Exact ()" doesn't utilize the Initial Articles entries in the Bib record so any title search with a "The" or "A" or "An" in the title are not returned in the search results. This has caused a push back to adoption since the very real perception is that Leap has inferior search capabilities. I'm not sure why the the "Bib Exact ()" search requires staff to strip out the A, An & The initial article…

    49 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. In the Cataloging module of Polaris, we are able to Bulk Change bibliographic records to change the record status from Provisional to Final ('Save provisional records as final'). During imports, this allows us to push records into the system if there are known duplicates, MARC errors, etc.

    It would be great to have the same functionality for Item Records: to be able to save hundreds of Provisional records as Final instead of having to click on each one and manually save them as Final.

    Idea Value
    This idea would directly benefit the cataloging staff in the amount of time we…

    26 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. We just upgraded to 6.5 and I'm very pleased with the ability to save record set changes as a template to use again and again. I make frequent identical changes on bibs in bulk mode to fields for incoming records. I know some people use MarcEdit for this purpose. Instead of having go "outside the system" for this process, it would be fabulous to be able to save frequently and repeated bibliographic bulk changes as templates for future records.

    Idea Value
    This would be a huge time saver when doing database clean up that needs ongoing monitoring as well as…

    30 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. When working with a list of bibs, items or patrons, ability use ctrl and shift keys to select a chunk of sorted records (without having to checkmark each item) to add them to a record set. If other web tools like gmail can do this for email deletions, it seems we could do this with LEAP too.

    Idea Value
    Saves time.

    77 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. This idea has been brought up before I believe as an enhancement. We would like more specific permission levels in item modifications. Specifically we need the ability to set permission to modify the Circulation Parameters in an item record (Material type, Loan period, Fine code, Renewal limit, separate from permission to change any Call number fields. This would allow us to choose which modifications certain levels of staff have the permission to perform.

    Idea Value
    This would result in fewer errors and fewer cataloging corrections on item modifications that have been done at the branch level. We realize this is…

    30 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. We'd like a bibliographic duplicate detection rule using 024$a with first indicator 3, either a new rule or modifying the existing 024$a rule. Currently there is a UPC rule that uses 024 1; there is also a 024$a rule but it specifically excludes fields with indicator 1 or 3. Why no option for 024 3? The 024$a rule says it "exclud[es] ISBN and UPC" but ISBNs aren't in 024. It does exclude EANs though, which means a lot of bibs, especially CDs, aren't detected as duplicates and one must manually find and merge them. That is, if they know to…

    32 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)
1 3 Next →
  • Don't see your idea?