Settings and activity
64 results found
-
11 votes
This idea will be reviewed by the Innovative product team for consideration in planning the upcoming product roadmap.
An error occurred while saving the comment 
Lloyd Chittenden
supported this idea
·
-
7 votes
This idea will be reviewed by the Innovative product team for consideration in planning the upcoming product roadmap.
Lloyd Chittenden
supported this idea
·
-
4 votes
The product team will review this idea for consideration for a future release.
Lloyd Chittenden
supported this idea
·
-
23 votes
The product team will review this idea for consideration for a future release.
Lloyd Chittenden
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Lloyd Chittenden
commented
It is also possible to do this with a JSON like this:
{
"target": {
"record": {
"type": "bib"
},
"field": {
"marcTag": "020"
}
},
"expr": {
"op": "not_exists",
"operands": [
"",
""
]
}
}But come on, the system can clearly do this. It should be easily available in the interface.
-
6 votes
The product team will review this idea for consideration for a future release.
An error occurred while saving the comment Lloyd Chittenden
commented
If they did add another digit, then you could get to 19 codes at 262144. Adding together all 19 codes would get you to 524288, and you would need still another digit to go farther. Maybe moving from 15 codes to 19 isn't enough of an improvement to be worth the difficulty of adding another digit.
An error occurred while saving the comment Lloyd Chittenden
commented
I realize further that the point of a system of codes doubling the number before is that you can add them together to make combined codes. They cut off at 32767 because that allows you to add up all of them together. If you added 32768, then adding together all the codes would get you to 131071, which would require another digit, which could be hard depending on what's going on in the background.
An error occurred while saving the comment Lloyd Chittenden
commented
I see that's not a random number. If you want to use a system where each code is two times the previous code (which can be very useful, and I can't really see any other reason to need even the number they already provide), then this limit only allows you 15 codes. The 16th one would be 32768. It seems strange to cut it off there, at one number before you could have a 16th code. Even if they did increase to 99999, then you would only get a 17th at 65536.
Lloyd Chittenden
supported this idea
·
-
20 votes
This idea will be reviewed by the Innovative product team for consideration in planning the upcoming product roadmap.
Lloyd Chittenden
supported this idea
·
-
13 votesLloyd Chittenden
supported this idea
·
-
22 votes
This idea will be reviewed by the product management team for possible inclusion in a future release.
Lloyd Chittenden
supported this idea
·
-
10 votes
This idea will be reviewed for consideration as an enhancement in an upcoming release.
Lloyd Chittenden
supported this idea
·
-
15 votes
The product team will review this idea for consideration for a future release.
Lloyd Chittenden
supported this idea
·
-
13 votes
The product team will review this idea for consideration for a future release.
Lloyd Chittenden
supported this idea
·
-
13 votes
The product team will review this idea for consideration for a future release.
Lloyd Chittenden
supported this idea
·
-
10 votes
The product team will review this idea for consideration for a future release.
Lloyd Chittenden
supported this idea
·
-
9 votes
The product team will review this idea for consideration for a future release.
Lloyd Chittenden
supported this idea
·
-
11 votes
The product team will review this idea for consideration for a future release.
Lloyd Chittenden
supported this idea
·
-
13 votes
The product team will review this idea for consideration for a future release.
Lloyd Chittenden
supported this idea
·
-
18 votes
The product team will review this idea for consideration for a future release.
An error occurred while saving the comment Lloyd Chittenden
commented
Because of this bug you occasionally actually get the wrong cover. It does send a number from the 024. It takes the 12 digit UPC and chops off the last 2 digits and sends a 10 digit number. Syndetics tries to match that with a 10 digit ISBN. Now and then it finds a match, but it is not for the thing you have, it will send a cover for something completely different.
Lloyd Chittenden
supported this idea
·
-
9 votes
The product team will review this idea for consideration for a future release.
Lloyd Chittenden
supported this idea
·
-
6 votes
The product team will review this idea for consideration for a future release.
Lloyd Chittenden
supported this idea
·
-
4 votes
The product team will review this idea for consideration for a future release.
Lloyd Chittenden
supported this idea
·
You can do this now with the load profiles. I suppose if you don't have access to load profiles, it would be nice to be able to do this from within a record.