Settings and activity
197 results found
-
24 votes
Alison Pruntel
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment -
9 votesAlison Pruntel
supported this idea
·
-
9 votesAlison Pruntel
supported this idea
·
-
3 votes
-
8 votesAlison Pruntel
supported this idea
·
-
32 votesAlison Pruntel
supported this idea
·
-
54 votesAlison Pruntel
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Alison Pruntel
commented
It would also be helpful that the timestamp was consistently applied. When viewing the holds queue for a title, you only see the timestamp in the "Not After" column if the patron placed the hold (Discover, mobile app, etc.). If staff places the hold, no timestamp. Usually when I want to see if there is an issue with how staff may be placing a hold (esp. for item-level holds, which we try and avoid), that's when the timestamp is helpful. Much more so than when the patron placed the hold.
-
36 votes
The product team will review this idea for consideration for a future release.
An error occurred while saving the comment Alison Pruntel
commented
I was just trying to figure out how an item-level hold got placed at a location that doesn't allow holds, to confirm whether it was indeed the LRD table that was wrong. There's always the question if the hold was placed by staff in SDA or some other way (website, etc.). I remember asking about this before, and see that I already put in the idea. Hope it makes it at some point!
An error occurred while saving the comment Alison Pruntel
commented
Per Barbara Leach, the hold-removed table records the following, so would need similar columns to the hold table...
removed_gmt
removed_by_user
removed_by_process
removed_by_programAlison Pruntel
shared this idea
·
-
9 votesAlison Pruntel
supported this idea
·
-
71 votesAlison Pruntel
supported this idea
·
-
44 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Alison Pruntel
commented
I just received a suggestion/comment card from a patron about Vega Mobile (not Vega in general) - "App suggestion; make a feature to see only physical books/media checked out and not all digital ones mixed in." Of course, ideally you'd be able to sort, because some people do want to see a mix or only digital. I thought this was something that was going to show up or was already available in the Vega bookshelf/account portal, too (I went to see if this was an option at least when viewing in Vega via a mobile browser), but it's not an option yet.
Alison Pruntel
supported this idea
·
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Alison Pruntel
commented
I just received a suggestion/comment card from a patron - "App suggestion; make a feature to see only physical books/media checked out and not all digital ones mixed in." Of course, ideally you'd be able to sort, because some people do want to see a mix or only digital. I thought this was something that was going to show up in the Vega bookshelf/account portal, too (I went to see if this was an option at least when viewing in Vega via a mobile browser)...
Alison Pruntel
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesAlison Pruntel
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Alison Pruntel
commented
We absolutely would like for the showcase to maintain the sort of the ILS review file. For example, we sort our new nonfiction by call number. New fiction is by author, etc. We try to mimic how the items are shelved in our system because that's how our patrons are used to browsing them. And that is the order they are in via the old /ftlist in the WebPAC (which our staff still look at).
I agree w/Martin that if options are added to sort our Showcases in Vega, that if at least at the default the ILS can match the sort in the ILS. And you'd get a warning if you tried to manually resort in Vega, that it's no longer sync'd with how the review file is?
-
35 votesAlison Pruntel
supported this idea
·
-
54 votesAlison Pruntel
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesAlison Pruntel
shared this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Alison Pruntel
commented
If you're using Repeated Bills (https://documentation.iii.com/sierrahelp/Default.htm#sril/sril_notices_bills.html), it's impossible to tell, within the Notices function, what bill sequence is being sent...is it bill #2? bill #3, etc.? Ideally there would be a column in the Table of Prepared Notices (https://documentation.iii.com/sierrahelp/Default.htm#sgcir/sgcir_notices_prepare.html) that noted what number of bill it was in the sequence. So in our case, we send a bill at 30 days, a repeat at 40 and a final repeat at 50. So we'd see either a 1, 2 or 3 in this column.
An error occurred while saving the comment Alison Pruntel
commented
If you're using Repeated Bills (https://documentation.iii.com/sierrahelp/Default.htm#sril/sril_notices_bills.html), it's impossible to tell, within the Notices function, what bill sequence is being sent...is it bill #2? bill #3, etc.? Ideally there would be a column in the Table of Prepared Notices (https://documentation.iii.com/sierrahelp/Default.htm#sgcir/sgcir_notices_prepare.html) that noted what number of bill it was in the sequence. So in our case, we send a bill at 30 days, a repeat at 40 and a final repeat at 50. So we'd see either a 1, 2 or 3 in this column.
An error occurred while saving the comment Alison Pruntel
commented
If you're using Repeated Bills (https://documentation.iii.com/sierrahelp/Default.htm#sril/sril_notices_bills.html), it's impossible to tell, within the Notices function, what bill sequence is being sent...is it bill #2? bill #3, etc.? Ideally there would be a column in the Table of Prepared Notices (https://documentation.iii.com/sierrahelp/Default.htm#sgcir/sgcir_notices_prepare.html) that noted what number of bill it was in the sequence. So in our case, we send a bill at 30 days, a repeat at 40 and a final repeat at 50. So we'd see either a 1, 2 or 3 in this column.
-
37 votes
The product team will review this idea for consideration for a future release.
An error occurred while saving the comment Alison Pruntel
commented
This would be very helpful. We are going to test out the new feature for assigning penalty points for patrons with unclaimed holds, and it came up (again) as to why can't we just send a notice that your holds is about to expire, just like we do the 3-day and 1-day courtesy notices.
Most patrons are good about picking up their holds, but there are days when we pull 25 items off the hold shelf, and some patrons just put the items right back on hold. You can see that the patron in the attached screenshot had holds that expired twice before she finally picked them up. That ties up the item(s) for almost two weeks without them being checked out.
Alison Pruntel
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Alison Pruntel
commented
I like this idea, but we do get complaints that we send out too many notices and none of them are opt in/opt out (ideally opt OUT). If we could somehow allow an opt-OUT for specific notices (not all of them...for example bills), that would help us accommodate those who complain about having no control over their notices (aside from opting out of them all completely by having a notice preference of print or phone).
Also, this might address an issue we've seen where some of our LX notices "fail to send" (with no explanation), including hold pickup notices. We just had a patron come in and complain because she never got the hold pickup (checked LX and it had failed), but did get her hold cancellation notice after her hold expired.
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Alison Pruntel
commented
I would simply like the ability to get the link (copy link) - preferably a short URL - along with whatever social media services display. As it stands now, you have to save the search (requires authentication), go to your saved searches, then go to share. Since this functionality already exists w/in saved searches in your Bookshelf, seems like it would be easy to have the experience be the same sharing a record or a search w/out having to be logged in.
Alison Pruntel
supported this idea
·
-
7 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Alison Pruntel
commented
Also include CAPTCHA or similar functionality to help mitigate the abuse of the /selfreg form, which is what we're stuck with using at the moment (no account creation via Vega/LX Starter yet).
Alison Pruntel
supported this idea
·
-
43 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.
Alison Pruntel
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Alison Pruntel
commented
Good grief, I just opened a ticket about this, thinking Vega was broken. Now I see that I've opened 3 tickets in the past about this. The answer you get is that when you limit a search to a physical location, the search results will also include eBooks which have no physical location. Does this make any sense to the average user? Why would anyone think by limiting that it would, by the way, also include any online versions related to a search. Especially problematic when it's a search by all (keyword) or concept.
I think I would prefer that being optional. My fear is someone accidentally overwriting my list in the ILS, even if I "own" it (other "owners" seem to be able to overwrite in Sierra, even if using a different login). I'd rather just go in and resync when I update the list in Sierra. Of course, I am putting in regular tickets about my sync failing on existing lists (when previously working). I also wish the ILS list was sorted the same as the review file (different idea about that), as it doesn't seem to follow any sort of sorting rule.