Settings and activity
72 results found
-
5 votes
Sarah St. Martin
supported this idea
·
-
16 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Sarah St. Martin
supported this idea
·
-
25 votesSarah St. Martin
supported this idea
·
-
21 votesSarah St. Martin
supported this idea
·
-
16 votesSarah St. Martin
supported this idea
·
-
17 votesSarah St. Martin
supported this idea
·
-
16 votesSarah St. Martin
supported this idea
·
-
32 votesSarah St. Martin
supported this idea
·
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Sarah St. Martin
commented
Our catalogers use this all the time in the client, and it's a factor in them not using Leap for creating POs.
Sarah St. Martin
supported this idea
·
-
25 votesSarah St. Martin
supported this idea
·
-
24 votesSarah St. Martin
supported this idea
·
-
14 votesSarah St. Martin
supported this idea
·
-
21 votesSarah St. Martin
supported this idea
·
-
13 votesSarah St. Martin
supported this idea
·
-
40 votesSarah St. Martin
supported this idea
·
-
37 votesSarah St. Martin
supported this idea
·
-
47 votesSarah St. Martin
supported this idea
·
-
40 votesSarah St. Martin
supported this idea
·
-
58 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Sarah St. Martin
commented
As more of our libraries begin using the 970 field to bulk add records to POs, this limitation is becoming a significant barrier to efficient workflows, especially in a consortium environment where full bib records often already exist and contain multiple ISBNs.
Staff frequently need to review and adjust the ISBN in the POLI. This extra step slows the process and increases the chance of errors. Selecting the wrong ISBN can result in ordering the incorrect format or the order being rejected by the vendor if the ISBN doesn't exist in their system. These errors create additional cleanup work that negates the intended efficiency of using the bulk-add process in the first place.
Addressing this issue would make the 970 workflow viable for a much larger number of libraries, greatly improving ordering accuracy and efficiency across the consortium.
Sarah St. Martin
supported this idea
·
-
54 votesSarah St. Martin
supported this idea
·
We just had an instance where being able to quickly identify the number of items after releasing a PO is important. A library was missing an item when the order arrived, even though the bib was linked to the POLI. There's no good way to tell what happened, and even though I've never seen Polaris not create an item when releasing a PO (if that option is selected), the library does not think they accidentally deleted or moved it. Going forward I advised them to check the item view after releasing a PO to ensure items were created based on the number ordered. However, manually counting the lines takes a lot of time for larger orders. Having a count on both the bib and item views would really help for quick checks.