Settings and activity
43 results found
-
55 votes
Joyce Peter
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment -
84 votesJoyce Peter
supported this idea
·
-
23 votes
We actually added an endpoint to support this integration in Polaris 7.6 (BibsPost). We've been working with BTCat to consume the endpoint in their application.
I'm going to set this to "Planned" for now because the integration is not live with BTCat yet. But the development piece required for Polaris has been done. Please let BTCat know you are interested!!
Joyce Peter
supported this idea
·
-
15 votesJoyce Peter
supported this idea
·
-
40 votesJoyce Peter
supported this idea
·
-
39 votesJoyce Peter
supported this idea
·
-
27 votesJoyce Peter
supported this idea
·
-
134 votesJoyce Peter
supported this idea
·
-
41 votesJoyce Peter
supported this idea
·
-
48 votesJoyce Peter
supported this idea
·
-
17 votesJoyce Peter
supported this idea
·
-
18 votesJoyce Peter
supported this idea
·
-
65 votesJoyce Peter
supported this idea
·
-
97 votesJoyce Peter
supported this idea
·
-
45 votesJoyce Peter
supported this idea
·
-
54 votesJoyce Peter
supported this idea
·
-
42 votesJoyce Peter
supported this idea
·
-
39 votesJoyce Peter
supported this idea
·
-
11 votesJoyce Peter
supported this idea
·
-
62 votesJoyce Peter
supported this idea
·
One of our former circ staff members used bulk change to erase the collection code on around 1,500 item records and that was not an easy thing to clean up as it involved dozens of collections. One of the reference staff has changed the ownership field when using bulk change-- and done it more than once even after receiving an admonition from me. I have more examples of unfortunate batch changes, but the bottom line is that if the catalogers or sys admin doesn't want staff to have the ability the modify a single item record-- they certainly shouldn't be allowed to modify thousands through a backdoor.