Minutes 9/27/2019
SUNY Catalog and Everything scope
Tim Jackson is seeing a big gap in Resource Sharing Borrowing stats between UB and the rest of SUNY, and he thinks that it might be because UB includes the SUNY Catalog in their Everything search. Does the DWG want to recommend that people include that scope in their Everything searches?
Expanded vs. Unexpanded Search
Expanded vs. Unexpanded Search
I'm getting questions from campus staff who don't understand that their Primo is defaulting to search only full-text. They don't realize that it works differently from EDS or Summon, where you see all results up front and then can limit to full-text and/or order whatever you don't have in full-text via ILL. I've also heard feedback from faculty who don't like this, especially because if your search fails, you don't get the "expand" facet, or any other facet. Does the DWG want to recommend that campuses switch their default search from unexpanded to expanded?
Primo VE webinar (differences between EDS Summon)
Primo VE webinar (differences between EDS Summon)
- expanded v. unexpanded issue
- printing your results list
- articles we may or may not have in our print journal collection. See Jill's example
Ongoing 505 (Content notes) woes) [snippets from discussion]
👋 Ongoing 505 (Content notes) woes - Discovery Working Group
👋 Ongoing 505 (Content notes) woes - Discovery Working Group
- Lack of indexing of the MARC field 505 (Content note) subfield t (title).
- I sincerely believe that the exclusion of the 505 subfield t from the TOC index and general keyword searching is a serious mistake on the part of Ex Libris that should be corrected. It should not require the Idea Exchange.
- during Vanguard we had to request the field be indexed specially, then before go-live we were told it wasn't necessary to add to our implementation requests because it was added by default. If I'd realized then that the appropriate subfields weren't included by default I would have requested it for our go-live setup
- here's the question, or maybe a suggestion for brainstorming -- how do we deal with situations like this?
Peer review concerns (from Primo Listserve) [snippets from discussion]
- an issue with assignment of Peer Reviewed status in Alma CZ and Primo PCI records, as based on Ulrichsweb data.
- From ExL: "The determination of whether an Primo Central article is peer-reviewed is based on the metadata provided by vendors to our Primo Central Team. If the metadata is inaccurate, the PCI team can correct records for particular journals. I have asked our PCI team to re-evaluate these records and you will be updated on the further progress of this case.
- It is not reasonable to expect staff in every institution to open a SalesForce case for every journal with such an issue.
You could spend your entire working life doing that, and it is not our responsibility. - Is this a concern for our group? If so how do we address this?
CDI Update - From Nancy
- Initial meeting with Ex Libris in October so more information forthcoming
Update from call with ExL leadership regarding Primo speed issues
- amount of time to index
- fulfillment and open url performance issues
- search performance
- VE still very much under development - causing some bugs and performance issues. Also some key functionality is missing
Empire Shared Collection can't be part of Everything Search
The ESC can't be part of his Everything search because it's set up as a local scope. Follow-up/discussion that the DWG could come up with about this problem.
The ESC can't be part of his Everything search because it's set up as a local scope. Follow-up/discussion that the DWG could come up with about this problem.