Settings and activity
102 results found
-
7 votes
Jeremy Goldstein
shared this idea
·
-
22 votesJeremy Goldstein
supported this idea
·
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Jeremy Goldstein
supported this idea
·
-
7 votesJeremy Goldstein
supported this idea
·
-
12 votesJeremy Goldstein
supported this idea
·
-
10 votesJeremy Goldstein
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesJeremy Goldstein
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesJeremy Goldstein
shared this idea
·
-
11 votesJeremy Goldstein
supported this idea
·
-
10 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Jeremy Goldstein
commented
Definitely, it's very odd that the window is set to expand relative to the width but not the height
Jeremy Goldstein
supported this idea
·
-
18 votesJeremy Goldstein
supported this idea
·
-
21 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Jeremy Goldstein
commented
This is another critical issue that is currently preventing our consortia from even considering the adoption of LX Starter as much as we would really like to. Many of our member libraries are multi branch systems. We've also got one complicated system with a town featuring two mostly but not entirely distinct organizations such that some users would need permissions for the na* locations, some for nat* and na3*, and others for just na2*. So this needs to be flexible and granular to work.
Jeremy Goldstein
supported this idea
·
-
13 votesJeremy Goldstein
shared this idea
·
-
11 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Jeremy Goldstein
commented
I absolutely want this feature.
The one complication I see that would have to be resolved is that there would also have to be a mechanism for identifying available files that could be written to. Currently the reviewFiles endpoint will only return a list of files that are in use...so you could take that and I suppose just know to fill in the blanks, but that's hardly ideal. That endpoint also does not return the capacity for the files, just how many records are currently contained within one. This proposed feature would work a lot better in conjunction with the ability to search for empty review files of x size vis the API, so that it could then claim the appropriate file to write to.
Jeremy Goldstein
supported this idea
·
-
12 votesJeremy Goldstein
supported this idea
·
-
54 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Jeremy Goldstein
commented
Brilliant! We're currently implementing policy updates around patron messages, largely driven by the lack of maintenance that is generally done with them.
Having date fields, particularly standardized ones, like this would be such a great help when it comes to reviewing this data in the system.
Jeremy Goldstein
supported this idea
·
-
15 votesJeremy Goldstein
supported this idea
·
-
13 votesJeremy Goldstein
supported this idea
·
-
13 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Jeremy Goldstein
commented
I've been communicating with III around this as we had not encountered this problem ourselves and I was curious. This limit was never listed in the customer facing documentation but there was at least an internal note about it for III staff.
Clearly it's a real limit impacting multiple libraries, but I can also confirm our heaviest acquisitions user doesn't seem to impacted and loads 100+ records in a day at least once a month.
Jeremy Goldstein
supported this idea
·
-
14 votes
This idea will be reviewed by the Innovative product team for consideration in planning the upcoming product roadmap.
Jeremy Goldstein
supported this idea
·
I can absolutely see the value in writing a script to make these sorts of adjustments when necessary.