ULMS Discovery : Discovery Issues for Meetings with Ex Libris
Created by Ian Chan (Unlicensed), last modified on Feb 24, 2023
Summary
Description
Submitted By
Submitted On
Incorrect Language information
The language information from the CDI is almost completely unreliable. We frequently field reports from patrons that an article was listed in Primo as English, but only an English abstract was available with the full text entirely in a different language. Often, it seems like the language information is being set uniformly at the journal level even when journals have a mix of English and other languages for their content. We need reliable language information at the article record.
Interaction between poor quality CDI records and KB records
We still frequently see electronic collections from the CZ set up to rely on the link resolver even in cases where this is unlikely to be successful. This includes collections of older ebooks that were never issues ISBNs, streaming videos (which almost always lack identifiers), and even ebook collections in cases where the same work has been issued many different ISBNs. When collections like this also have minimal MARC records, there is very little information available for successful resolution, and combined with equally barebones CDI records, we see cases where patrons see full text links for content that is completely unrelated to the records they’re viewing.
We frequently see a CDI record for an ebook that includes services for a different edition. CDI records often have a mess of ISBNs, and this often includes ISBNs for “related” editions that are stripped of the necessary metadata to identify it as the wrong edition. When these records use the resolver and we have access to a different edition of the book, we’ll see links show up there, leading to confusion especially when students are required to use the newest edition for a course. With CDI records, there is no direct way for library staff to correct ISBN information. We need to make sure that CDI records for books do not inadvertently include ISBNs for other editions.
Changing UI Elements is overly complex and poorly documented
Those who have worked with customizing the interface have found it tedious and overly complex.
DFC
Several highly used areas of Primo VE Front-End UI require usability testing with goal of improving UX
Feedback from Primo VE evaluation survey
“Disjoint full record services such as Rapido, view it, get it, requesting, etc.”
“ViewIt messaging (and its display on the full record) not distinct enough for users to know what to do.”
Availability indicators confusing
The open access indicator can be inaccurate between brief and full displays
Primo VE evaluation survey respondents
Known item searching and issues with local collection visiblity
Feedback from Primo VE evaluation survey
“Even after refining search results to local holdings only, OneSearch continues to list items not held in local collection”
Known item searching could be improved
Primo VE evaluation survey respondents
CDI Global Title Index is highly problematic
Feedback from Primo VE evaluation survey
Rapido has disrupted things requiring significant boosting of local results. Global Title index is a disaster.
Hard to know if patrons are getting what they want even with ranking and boosting options
De-duping and ranking need to be better. The documentation is not good enough.
The algorithm is opaque, with so much data coming from the CDI boosting is difficult
Indexing is not intuitive, need to have workarounds to find what you need.
Some ebook and ejournal titles are not being included in Primo searches
Multiple entries for the same collection are showing up
CDI Global Title Index records are brief to the point of being useless, problematic subject headings (other languages). Many have wrong resource types. Would like to be able to exclude CDI ebooks (not possible with Rapido)
Matching on title when there is no other metadata is very problematic
Primo VE evaluation survey respondents
Can’t trust availability statement - sometimes change when the record is opened
Several respondents to the Primo VE evaluation survey mentioned concerns in this area.
Primo VE evaluation survey respondents
Primo Analytics interface is difficult to use and the associated documentation is insufficient
While the OTB reports are useful, the Analytics interface is difficult to use and there is a lack of documentation.
Primo VE evaluation survey respondents
Rapido appears to have had a severe negative impact on Primo VE
Rapido “has been a crippling and coping experience rather than anything remotely resembling an enhancement.”
It is difficult to separate whether the issues are entirely or partially from one system or the other.
Primo VE evaluation survey respondents
Library Card Configurations
Documentation is very minimal. For example, the Loans Detailed Display instructions page contains little more than a couple of screenshots, yet there are 27 fields in the mapping table. Our upcoming renovation will require significant changes to our services, including locations and pick-up points, and it is unclear what options we may have to optimize My Library Card to provide the best guidance to our users.
The My Requests tab is still not configurable. Months after going live with Rapido, we still cannot customize the details our users see in this tab.
GetIt Configuration
Request forms lack critically important fields. For example, we had to repurpose the Comment field to allow users to enter their shipping address for home delivery as it often differs from the address in their patron record. This creates confusion for users who want to add actual comments (e.g. "French language edition needed"). It also puts important information in an unexpected field in the Alma request.
Resource Sharing Request forms lack consistency and transparency. It is not always clear whether a configuration will affect all Resource Sharing Request forms or just the Blank ILL form.
Documentation is very minimal. Much of the information on the Configuring Request Forms page consists of instructions to select checkboxes and select viewable/mandatory options without any documentation regarding the available fields. For example, what is the difference between "Preferred Pickup Location" and "Preferred Local Pickup Location"? How does "Alternative Location Address" work?
Rapido integration with Primo VE
Rapido added features and links to Primo VE that we cannot disable easily (or at all) or that have a completely different style from existing features. For example, we don't like that the link to the Blank ILL form always appears at the top of the search results, but it's not a configurable option; we might be able to hide this with CSS, but it adds unnecessary complexity to our code and we shouldn't have to resort to this method. The Rapido boxes are bold and bright blue while ViewIt, GetIt, and HowToGetIt services links appear in light blue on a white background. CSS changes were required to bring the services links into visual parity with the Rapido features; this should be an easier process.
The Rapido Global Title Index was an unfortunate surprise. The ERM group is devoting most of their discussion to GTI, so I mention this only to note it as a pain point introduced into Primo VE with little warning.