Settings and activity
256 results found
-
33 votes
Margaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Margaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
17 votes
The product team will review this idea for consideration for a future release.
Margaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
9 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
17 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
13 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
shared this idea
·
-
24 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.
An error occurred while saving the comment Margaret Rose O'Keefe
commented
This says Anonymous but it was actually our idea - to expand upon this, it would be ideal to be able to exclude econtent even when a location filter is not applied. Having it as an option to exclude it in general would be an improvement.
Margaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
12 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
5 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
14 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
85 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Margaret Rose O'Keefe
commented
Displaying is important, but retrieval is arguably even more important. Indexing subfield c is key for that. There are many examples where results can't be retrieved, because the authorized name from the 1xx/7xx field isn't the one being searched (e.g. Steve Brezenoff produces over 60 results in the PAC, but only 1 result in Vega, because the authorized name is Steven Brezenoff) - how would a patron know to find/search the authorized name instead? Do they even know what an authorized name is? More likely they would just assume the library doesn't have those items and abandon their search.
Please vote on this idea to index subfield c: https://ideas.iii.com/forums/951766-vega-discover/suggestions/49792655-index-245-subfield-c
An error occurred while saving the comment Margaret Rose O'Keefe
commented
There are many examples of when the name of an author/contributor as pictured on the item, listed in the 245 $c, is different from the version in the authorized 1xx or 7xx field. As such, the 245 $c needs to be indexed for searching, since that is what patrons are more likely to search by - they have no idea about authorized versions of names in LC, much less what they would be for any given author/contributor. Additionally, a recent example illustrated to us that even when they are very close to what the authorized name is, they could still miss finding what they need - searching "AJ Pearce" as pictured on the item doesn't retrieve the same results as when searching "A. J. Pearce", which is the authorized version. A patron wouldn't know this.
Margaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
70 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Margaret Rose O'Keefe
commented
Yes, also bulk undelete please!
Margaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
54 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
27 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Margaret Rose O'Keefe
commented
Yes, please, and allow them to change it also
Margaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
39 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Margaret Rose O'Keefe
commented
Yes, and please give us the ability for this request to go to the patron's registered home library and not a central email account. Thanks!
An error occurred while saving the comment Margaret Rose O'Keefe
commented
(Update - this is no longer listed on the roadmap.)
An error occurred while saving the comment Margaret Rose O'Keefe
commented
Not sure why it says Anonymous... I submitted this idea!
Margaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Margaret Rose O'Keefe
commented
The way this would work best would be if the patrons were able to select exactly which formats they wanted to include in the grouped hold - not just automatically include every single format in a roll-up
An error occurred while saving the comment Margaret Rose O'Keefe
commented
In Polaris, staff can group holds on different formats together for patrons if, for example, they don't care whether they get the DVD or Blu-ray, or the regular print or large print. This would be great patron service if they could do that themselves.
Margaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
26 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Margaret Rose O'Keefe
commented
Can we combine this with https://ideas.iii.com/forums/951766-vega-discover/suggestions/48095489-allow-patrons-to-add-or-modify-username-field-va and get it to 54 votes?
Margaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
29 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
-
43 votesMargaret Rose O'Keefe
supported this idea
·
Absolutely! Patrons shouldn't be stopped from placing a hold on a roll-up when there are other editions there that could suffice.