Settings and activity
19 results found
-
11 votesUNDER REVIEW · 3 comments · ILS - Polaris » Acquisitions, Serials & Item/Issue/Inventory Management · Admin →
Andrew Teeple
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment -
8 votesAndrew Teeple
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesAndrew Teeple
supported this idea
·
-
10 votesAndrew Teeple
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesAndrew Teeple
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesAndrew Teeple
supported this idea
·
-
9 votesAndrew Teeple
supported this idea
·
-
98 votes
https://portal.productboard.com/iii/15-vega-product-portal/c/869-meep-enhancement-winner-use-ils-bib-record-lists-for-showcase-creation
Andrew Teeple
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesAndrew Teeple
supported this idea
·
-
50 votesAndrew Teeple
supported this idea
·
-
39 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Andrew Teeple
commented
Yes, please! We currently allow our patrons to set OCLC WorldCat as a secondary database when they can't find what they want in our PowerPAC, then they can place their hold there and staff can then decide whether it is a purchase or ILL request.
I am disappointed to see that Vega Discover doesn't have that capability as we transition over to Discover.
Andrew Teeple
supported this idea
·
-
16 votesAndrew Teeple
supported this idea
·
-
14 votesAndrew Teeple
supported this idea
·
-
10 votesAndrew Teeple
supported this idea
·
-
9 votesAndrew Teeple
supported this idea
·
-
11 votesAndrew Teeple
supported this idea
·
Andrew Teeple
shared this idea
·
-
8 votesAndrew Teeple
supported this idea
·
-
45 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Andrew Teeple
commented
Our patrons and public services staff have asked for this for years. Like @Emma Olmstead-Rumsey noted, it is inconsistent with the way we can limit other searches. It would make it easier for patrons to find exactly what they need in our collections.
Andrew Teeple
supported this idea
·
-
22 votesAndrew Teeple
supported this idea
·
Yes, please! I tried to get this idea implemented in the previous enhancement request knowledge base, but it didn't get past the peer review stage, where someone commented that it was unnecessary and it just required "better staff training."
We have staff members who accidentally delete record sets all the time! Accidentally! It isn't an issue of "better staff training" when it happens accidentally.
We use a significant number of shared record sets between staff members, many of which are set up to populate custom reports. Multiple staff members populate these record sets, so it is frustrating when one of these is accidentally deleted and the custom report no longer functions.
Naturally, not all record sets need to be marked as such but it would certainly be helpful to have this option at the permissions level.