Settings and activity
150 results found
-
5 votes
Elizabeth Wright
supported this idea
·
-
10 votesElizabeth Wright
supported this idea
·
-
26 votesElizabeth Wright
supported this idea
·
-
15 votesElizabeth Wright
supported this idea
·
-
13 votesElizabeth Wright
supported this idea
·
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Elizabeth Wright
shared this idea
·
-
22 votesElizabeth Wright
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Elizabeth Wright
commented
This would be helpful when the Technical Services department generates a list of items to retrieve and needs to place item-level holds on them. In these cases, all holds would share the same pickup location.
-
16 votesElizabeth Wright
shared this idea
·
-
50 votes
I apologize for the erroneous update. The change we made in Nov/Dec of 2024 did not actually deliver the requested functionality in this idea request. Changing status back to Under Review.
An error occurred while saving the comment Elizabeth Wright
commented
I just opened a ticket about this thinking Vega was broken as well. If customers take the initiative to limit the result to a branch location, WHY would they want to include ALL eResources. That just doesn't make sense. Please exclude eResource materials if the Branch location is selected. That is a physical location (in the branch), and not an eLocation.
Elizabeth Wright
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesElizabeth Wright
shared this idea
·
-
10 votesElizabeth Wright
shared this idea
·
-
23 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Elizabeth Wright
commented
Yes - # of holds, # of available copies, and total copies is what our customers have asked for.
-
4 votesElizabeth Wright
shared this idea
·
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Elizabeth Wright
commented
Hi Emma - this is the workflow:
On a resource record (or Author resource page)
1) Log in (successfully)
2) Use the browser back button.We get an error message or "confirm form submission error". Innovative told us that this is the expected behaviour - this is why I have added the Idea.
Elizabeth Wright
shared this idea
·
-
10 votesElizabeth Wright
shared this idea
·
-
35 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Elizabeth Wright
commented
We would like to be able to change the wording on this as well. Thank you.
Elizabeth Wright
supported this idea
·
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Elizabeth Wright
commented
This facet is also difficult to use because when formats are rolled up, the default format that is at a specific location is not highlighted. Customers have to manually check each format to see which one is at that location.
Elizabeth Wright
shared this idea
·
-
15 votesElizabeth Wright
shared this idea
·
-
16 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Elizabeth Wright
commented
Elizabeth Wright
supported this idea
·
-
60 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Elizabeth Wright
commented
This is incredibly important. Patrons want to manage their holds, and some libraries (like ours) allow for up to 100 holds. Sorting by title, author, date placed, frozen hold date, and where they are in the queue is needed.
An error occurred while saving the comment Elizabeth Wright
commented
Patrons would like want more sorting options to manage their holds.
Elizabeth Wright
supported this idea
·
There would definitely be a number of ways to do this, but I don’t think staff would want to respond to a prompt at each check-in. Instead, I’m envisioning something that builds on the existing hold pickup location model.
1. Each branch could be assigned a configurable maximum number of duplicate titles allowed on the shelf. (eg. Larger branches might allow 3–4 copies, while smaller branches might allow only 2).
2. At check-in, if the number of duplicates on the shelf exceeds that maximum, the system would automatically determine where to send the copy using the priority established in a table similar to the hold pickup location.
What is fantastic about the hold pickup location table is that priority can be based on a randomized group of locations or individual branches.
3. The system would never redirect a copy to a branch that already has it on the shelf unless everyone has a copy. In that scenario, the maximum number of duplicates would be checked by the system.