On a scale of 1-10, how satisfied are you and your colleagues with how Primo currently performs?

What is the top Primo (or Alma) issue currently affecting discovery at your campus?

What is the second Primo (or Alma) issue currently affecting discovery at your campus?

What is the third Primo (or Alma) issue currently affecting discovery at your campus?

List any additional Primo (or Alma) issues currently affecting discovery at your campus:

What discovery needs does your campus have that require Alma and/or Primo development to address?

Do you communicate with Ex Libris Support (e.g. working with cases via Salesforce)?

On a scale of 1-10, how responsive is Ex Libris Support in addressing issues regarding discovery?

Any comments on why Ex Libris Support received that score?

Anything else that you want to share with the Discovery Functional Committee?

Too many non-relevant results at the top of the search returns.

Known item searching not working well.

Metadata from CDI can be incorrect or poor, including peer-reviewed status.

Citation information is not complete or irregular, records look bad, generates poor citations.

There's a lot of dismissiveness. I also feel that we have done a great deal of work to manage the crummy publisher-supplied metadata through norm rules, but the push for us to go to Primo VE may undo a number of our changes.

Understanding how or what to check when activating CDI in Alma

They do address my cases. However, sometimes it seems like cases should be resolved within 2 weeks turnaround but aren't. Some analysts are really good at explaining what they did to fix the problem. I appreciate it when I get the same analysts because then I hope we have established a relationship.

Index update has caused inconsistent linking to full text

problems to authenticate users due to glitches caused by updates.

CDI - bad metadata merges break faceting

Sign in issues related to filters (sign-in failure, corrupted filters post sign in, etc.)

CDI - bad metadata causes strange display issues that confuse our users

There seem to be a lot of weird issues around sign-in: corrupted filters, unexpected error pages, etc. It seems like the process could be more robust.

Since CDI was implemented, response time has tanked. It used to be next day or less before I got an initial "hi we've seen your case" response; now a few days is more typical. Also, cases aren't getting updated as frequently. e.g., it looks like a couple of mine may have been resolved, but there's no update in the case.

I'd like to see more central support via things like the Central Package--campuses are under a lot of pressure and positions are getting taken away, so extra help is appreciated. Also, is Discovery responsible for the Course Reserves application? We use it and really like it, but I needed to ask about a strange title mismatch and couldn't seem to find any way to contact whoever maintains it.

Duplication of records for the same resource or similar resources (different databases and coverage, but same item)

Trying to figure out what the "everything" scope is actually indexing

Figuring out if there's bias in the way Primo displays results

They're slow to respond, sometimes give unsatisfactory answers or not through answers, or if there are two questions in the case, they only answer one, meaning I have to follow up and ask them to answer the second question

citation linking is inconsistent

I don't understand the question

These cases seem to go into a black hole

Thanks for asking our opinions!

delivery of different records for same item-e.g. some scopus records have drifted in, on occocastion with links Cited by -- scopus records

CDI making scopes funky (articles scope is no longer just articles, duplication related to CDI, plus should we add a newspaper scope)

Prevelance of book reviews in results

Algorithmic bias likely due to the weighting of medical journal articles

Intermittent login issues (maybe our campus fault?)

We really need an audit of some kind. I know that there is so much out there that we've never implemented or haven't updated. It would be great if the discovery committee could check in and let us know/help us with things that have fallen by the wayside.

ebooks from other campuses showing up in our searches, even though our students have no access

Print holdings for our journals aren't used in considering availability and this is very confusing to our users.

Bad linking metadata from some CDI records; especially to EBSCO databases

Difficulty filtering for media records (video and/or audio)

Date filters don't work consistently; CDI has been confusing to implement

Sometimes they are very responsive and others I hear nothing for months and months. It's unpredictable. And sometimes significant issues are dismissed as being "features" or just things that will not be addressed.

Poor relevancy ranking for known items. For example, in our local scope, if you search for a book called leadership for increasingly diverse schools. The first result is from CDI, says full text in the results list, but when you click into the record it says No full text. However, we do have the full text. Result #4 is the Alma record for the online version. Why is it 4th? Why is a book review ranked higher than the actual book?

On the results side bar filters. The Resource Type items are ranked by the number of results of each resource type. It would be better to rank it by most popular resource types, such as Articles, Books, Videos. Patrons do not know to show more and so can't find the book or video they were looking for (which are generally the content types they want.

I'm not sure if this counts as discovery, but patrons don't realize they need to sign-in for their pinned items to be saved for later. Primo should prompt you to sign-in if you pin something.

If relevancy ranking, especially for known items, could be improved it would solve a lot of our chat reference queries! Also, having separate records from CDI and Alma (print and online) is confusing to patrons. They only see the first one, and miss the others.

They take FOREVER (like up to 8 months) to fix problems with records. Mostly what I report is link resolver problems.

Thanks for the work you do!!

article search - it doesn't search across our collections very well.

"Check holdings" - I don't like how the system doesn't rank results by our library's holdings first and then by revelance second. It's very confusing for students and creates work for librarians.

The system doesn't recognize when we do not have a certain holding based on date (i.e Results show we carry an item but in reality do not)

Not all the database articles show up on Primo

Open access links are not updated with current information

Sometimes they answer the question, sometimes "it's a feature" or "in development".

Author name is treated differently between Alma (last, first) and the Primo CDI results (first last) which can cause annoying problems if patrons use quotes to search the author field

If you lock a facet on for a canned search using ",lk" in the url, it is always on for that browser session (set with cookies), which makes sense, but can be problematic with canned search links. In a perfect world I'd have locked facets rely entirely on URL entities carried forward to the new search (&rtype...,lk) and not rely on cookies to remember the search. Intuitively if someone leaves OneSearch and then comes back to do another new search a little later we probably don't need to remember their facets. It's likely only necessary when they run a new search immediately with new keywords, etc.

Some of our teaching faculty don't like it and aren't afraid to remind us.

If you save a search in Primo, then go to your saved searches and get the url for the RSS feed, the RSS link is broken. It works, but only sporadically as there's an "&ver=2_1_4" instead of an "&ver=2_1_4" at the end. This was reported to Ex Libris years ago, but they basically said it wouldn't be fixed. https://sdsu-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo_library/libweb/newRss?rssId=1730678011&queryTerm=%22alien%20abduction%22&vid=01CALS_SDL&ver=2_1_4

I mainly deal with them through Brian Moore, but they make it seem like small fixes (the RSS example I gave earlier) would require too much effort to fix. I haven't asked for anything to be reported in a long while though.

Thanks for taking such good care of the system. It's nice to know someone is worried about the function of our discovery system :)

Adjusting locations and who can use certain functions. For example, no easy way to schedule curb side pickup within Alma. Primo users not seeing the new request links.

How do you get the course reserve icon off of items that are not our course reserve items, but other campuses. Quite confusing.

Loan Rules, Policy, Terms of Use, how shows in Primo, accuracy

Generally we have no problems with Primo. We do have staff working on a number of projects with regard to who can request what, i.e. only students able to request wifi checkouts. Scheduling pick up has also been a challenge. We'll figure it out.

Generally the last thing I do is submit a case. I look at Slack to see if others have similar issues to what I am looking for information on. I go to the ULMS site. I use the Knowledge Center. I'm glad to have avenues to work with colleagues rather than have to wait for response on a case. Thanks ULMS team for making so many things easier for us. We can always rely on you all.

False full-text-available messages for CDI collections we do not have.

Duplication of CDI and Alma ebook records. I've been trying to reduce the duplication per the latest advice from EL, with limited success.

I wish we had a better way to indicate that CSU+ services are available. The option remains almost entirely hidden.

I suspect many of the CDI issues will require development attention.

I have the sense that EL support frequently doesn't understand discovery issues. I understand part of this--discovery operates within a wide variety of local customizations--but I also have the feeling lately that support doesn't understand CDI any better than I do. Also, response times on discovery questions are generally slow.

In Advanced search module, when selecting "articles" as search scope, we still got many books in the result list. We are conerned of the accuracy of searching by selecting scopes.

Even peer-reviewed filter was selected, there are still many results from non peer-reviewed sources from open access.

"Bad" metadata pertaining to the CDI switch is clearly the top problem based on our survey of the community of practice. We didn't get a lot of detail as to the exact problems with the metadata but I think at this point we're familiar with the number of Salesforce cases and types of problems that people are identifying - inaccurate holdings/fulltext information in both brief and full records (but not necessarily in both at the same time), merged records that contain inaccuracies, percieved persistence of duplicate records (it is unclear based on the survey if this is due to Alma and CDI records or if people are complaining about CDI records that should be merged), and books displaying in article results (scopes and advanced search).

Results ranking/relevancy ranking. Concerns here often included specific examples such as many failed known item searches, where the item is not on the 1st page of results. Another concern was the occasion that book reviews show up higher in results than the actual book. (Personally, I think this has improved greatly but a couple respondents claim this is still a problem so I am passing it on.)

After the top two issues there was a considerable narrow tail of complaints that didn't really rise to a clear third issue. If I were going to group them under one heading it would be 'authentication'. Several campuses said they were having glitches in this area of unclear origin. Some also complained about the nature of how sign in is required to see specific services and options for holdings, a couple expressed the idea that the buttons to prompt authentication are still not prominent enough.

Other issues identified: prolems with date range filters, problems with the autogenerated citations. One concern which was expressed many times, but is not actually a product defect, is the fact that many campuses' Articles scopes are a misnomer: they return results for many more resource types and this confuses users and apparently staff and faculty as well. Some education about the fact that the so-called Articles scope is just a CDI scope needs to be done, some campuses might want to rename or remove their Articles scope.

Some respondents expressed desire for a better way to highlight CSU+ availability and holdings in the brief results and full record GetIt menu area. A small group of respondents made comments about "bias" in Primo results and the inability to clearly understand why the results which do appear show for whatever reasons they do. Other suggestions which would require development are: 1) merging/deduplicaton of CDI and Alma records for the same title holdings, and 2) the ability to customize scopes more, specifically to pre-set filters for scopes which would not affect other scopes.

Responses to this question varied. No one was thrilled with ExL Support, though one respondent gave them an 8 most responses rated them considerably lower around 4-6 hence the average of 6. A consistent theme here was the unpredictability of both response time and resolution. Sometimes cases are resolved in a satisfactory manner and quickly but other times they either take a long time to be resolved (several respondents noted this is the case for inaccurate CDI records in particular) or the resolution is not satifactory. Some people said they felt like what they think should be simple fixes for obvious bugs either are not fixed or languish "in development" for too long.

Most respondents were pleased that we sent the survey out and that someone 'cares' about how Primo is performing and working for the system. A few respondents urged for more centralization and support for the Central Package - there is a feeling at some institutions that they do not have the staffing level or training(?) to support Primo in the manner that they would like to. So at least some people want the CO or DFC to take the reins of their local situation more than is currently happening.