Settings and activity
111 results found
-
16 votes
We will be adding a permission to address the issue of users with general access being able to reach the PAPI keys. There are some other comments here that could be considered separate enhancements, so please open new ideas for changes beyond a PAPI Key Management permission.
Emma Olmstead-Rumsey
supported this idea
·
-
25 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Emma Olmstead-Rumsey
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesEmma Olmstead-Rumsey
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Emma Olmstead-Rumsey
commented
I love this idea! It could be implemented in a lot of different ways, too, if the details didn't work out for this proposal. But the concept is important. Our patrons do not care what location a checked-out item is assigned to. They care about three categories: available at my current/preferred branch, available elsewhere, and not currently available. Checked-out items could be grouped under a checked-out 'branch'' at the bottom of the availability popup if they couldn't be hidden completely.
-
127 votesEmma Olmstead-Rumsey
supported this idea
·
-
40 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Emma Olmstead-Rumsey
commented
There is a system admin setting that might or might not do this already, I don't 100% understand how it behaves. Admin Explorer-->Profiles-->Cataloging-->Automatic display in PAC processing.
If you have the bottom checkbox checked, I think you could accomplish this with current tools?
-
23 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Emma Olmstead-Rumsey
commented
Hi Sam, we are using standard authentication, not OAUTH. Thanks for looking at this.
Emma Olmstead-Rumsey
shared this idea
·
-
10 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Emma Olmstead-Rumsey
commented
Yes! We were on the fence about using it but ended up deciding to use it precisely because we didn't think we'd be able to stop staff from using it by accident.
The fact that the damaged 'status' is a sort of ghost status that only exists in Leap creates a lot of issues. It would be nice to be able to opt out of this new 'feature.''
Emma Olmstead-Rumsey
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesEmma Olmstead-Rumsey
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Emma Olmstead-Rumsey
commented
Yes, PLEASE!
-
12 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Emma Olmstead-Rumsey
commented
This seems like it really needs to be fixed. Why not have one system-level table for this and allow entries in it to be suppressed or not at different libraries/branches? That is what is done for a lot of similar items and seems to be much 'safer' in terms of potential for error.
Emma Olmstead-Rumsey
supported this idea
·
-
28 votesEmma Olmstead-Rumsey
supported this idea
·
-
38 votesEmma Olmstead-Rumsey
shared this idea
·
-
43 votesEmma Olmstead-Rumsey
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesEmma Olmstead-Rumsey
supported this idea
·
-
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Emma Olmstead-Rumsey
commented
Agreed. While the majority of our patrons really like auto-renewal, we regularly receive requests from patrons who want to opt out.
Emma Olmstead-Rumsey
supported this idea
·
-
10 votesEmma Olmstead-Rumsey
supported this idea
·
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Emma Olmstead-Rumsey
commented
Just curious Brandon, what is your current workflow? Before we allowed patrons to cancel held items themselves, staff would receive the request, pull the item, check it in, and choose "no" to the "continue to hold item?" prompt. We liked that because it stopped the item status from being changed until the item was physically removed from the shelf. I would worry with cancellation that staff would cancel the item in Leap and then get busy and never remove it from the shelf.
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Emma Olmstead-Rumsey
commented
I think Authorized User must be a UDF field that your library has set up. I like the idea of having the option to have UDFs display in the header, but would not want this by default at our library.
Emma Olmstead-Rumsey
supported this idea
·
-
69 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Emma Olmstead-Rumsey
commented
This is especially important with the addition of pickup areas in 7.5. We've gotten a lot of feedback from front-line staff that the pickup area information is not clearly visible on the hold slips and stuff gets mis-shelved.
Emma Olmstead-Rumsey
supported this idea
·
-
14 votesEmma Olmstead-Rumsey
supported this idea
·
-
34 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Emma Olmstead-Rumsey
commented
Adding myvoice to the other comments. Many of our patrons believe our catalog IS our website, and the only way to reach them online is to display information directly on the catalog homepage as this would allow.
You can SORT OF do this now by adding a custom PAC banner, but it is very finicky, especially if you are hosted, and requires your library to have someone able to make a graphic that fits Polaris's requirements and a sysadmin who can quickly access this area at short notice.
Emma Olmstead-Rumsey
supported this idea
·
The same problem happens at multi-branch systems that are not part of a consortium. We recently conducted interviews with patrons about our PAC, and *every single one* expected the combination of the Available Now facet and the location limiter to behave the way Matt described.
I was confused by this request when I first read it, so for anyone like me who might be reading this:
Suppose my library has two branches, East Branch and West Branch. We own two copies of "Don't Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus." The copy belonging to East Branch is checked out and the copy belonging to West Branch is on the shelf.
If I search in the PAC and limit my search to "East Branch items" AND "Available now," "Don't Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus" will show up in my search results even though there is not a copy on the shelf at East. "Available now" shows me all bibs that have at least one attached item in "In" status, and "East Branch" shows me all bibs that have at least one attached item assigned to East Branch.
This search setup is the number one complaint I get about our OPAC.