07207975: sort_by_owner_group = true does not sort as expected or described
Case Number | 07207975 |
|---|---|
Case Title | sort_by_owner_group = true does not sort as expected or described |
Date Opened | Jun 26, 2024 |
Date Resolved/Closed |
|
Resolution |
|
Time Between Dates |
|
Case Description
June 2024's release included a fix that added a parameter to the Discovery Customer Settings page to group versions by owner. "When sort_by_owner_group is set to true, FRBR groups are sorted by owner, starting with the current IZ, NZ, and then other IZs."
This parameter does not appear to work as expected (screenshots attached).
To provide a better and expected user experience, consider the following user story:
As a library patron using Primo VE, I want the search results to prioritize (including record groups and the Get It/Find It sections of the full record):
Physical items at my institution or immediately downloadable digital/electronic items (preferably available items display before unavailable items)
Physical items I can request from other institutions within my consortium but are not at my institution.
Items from outside my consortium or digital/electronic resources without full text availability,
so that I can easily access and utilize the most readily available resources first, improving my overall library experience.
Summary
Support Response
Development confirmed that the parameter only affects IZ records not linked to the NZ.
Sorting for NZ-linked records remains random, and changing this would require a new Product Idea submission, as Primo VE was not designed to support this functionality in a collaborative network.
After pushback, Support and Product Management reviewed the issue and proposed an acceptable revised sorting order.
The fix for NZ-linked record sorting is now planned for June 2025.
No solution is planned for sorting by availability or access options
User Concerns
Core issue was not addressed initially – The user clearly reported the problem as affecting Network Zone (NZ) records, but the initial fix only applied to Institution Zone (IZ) records, missing the mark entirely.
Collaborative networks are disadvantaged – The suggestion that making the functionality work for NZ records should be an "enhancement request" implies that Primo VE was not designed with collaborative networks in mind, despite its integration with Alma, which effectively manages collaborative environments.
Sorting by availability remains unaddressed – While the proposed fix improves NZ sorting, it does not prioritize available items, meaning users may still struggle to find the most accessible resources first.
Long resolution timeline – The fix for NZ-linked record sorting is scheduled for June 2025, leaving users with a suboptimal experience for another year.
Case Comments
User | Created | Comment |
|---|---|---|
6/27/2024 3:29 PM | Hi Jessica, I am reviewing these examples and will update you with my findings as soon as I can. Thank you, Natalia Entin | |
8/12/2024 1:45 PM | Hi Jessica, Development team have reviewed the scenario in this case and provided the same explanation as in case 07207893. When the 'sort_by_owner_group' parameter is set to true, the IZ records that are not linked to the NZ will be preferred in DEDUP and FRBR groups. For IZ records that are linked to NZ, the sorting will be done randomly by the NZ regardless of the IZ owner of the linked record. The ability to sort by the owner of the NZ would need to be submitted as a Product Idea as Primo is not currently designed to provide that option. Natalia | |
8/12/2024 2:56 PM | (The following is not your fault, Natalia. You're just the messenger here. You've been great on all of these tickets. /thumbsup)
We made it clear in our discussion on February 22, 2024, that this problem was affecting Network Zone records, and we needed a solution that worked within a Collaborative Network. The fix only applying to IZ records shows that the development team missed the mark and didn't address the core issue reported in ticket 07029351. This isn’t a minor enhancement—it’s a critical functionality that has been fixed for everyone except Collaborative Networks. Our user experience (and the experience of our library patrons) shouldn’t be worse simply because we’re part of a collaborative network. The statement that “the ability to sort by the owner of the NZ record would need to be submitted as a Product Idea as Primo is not currently designed to provide that option” suggests that Primo VE was never designed to support collaborative networks. If so, that would be a fundamental oversight when developing a product that integrates exclusively with Alma. Given that Alma effectively manages collaborative environments, we expected Primo VE to support collaborative networks without us having to request basic functional parity with individual institutions. The current situation is unacceptable, and I strongly urge the development team to prioritize fixing this issue so that all users, including those in collaborative environments, have equitable access to the product’s features. | |
9/23/2024 1:18 PM | Hi Jessica, I have an update from the Development team and a Product Manger regarding the FRBR and DEDUP sorting for NZ and IZ records. They've reviewed the issue and have determined that the sorting of records in DEDUP and FRBR can be improved as requested, to achieve the following order:
However, the development team wants to highlight that sorting records by access options or availability won’t be possible. Therefore, prioritizing available physical or electronic records won’t be included in this development. Would that be an acceptable solution for your institution? Thank you! | |
9/24/2024 9:46 AM | Yes, I believe the proposed order is an acceptable solution. It meets the primary requirements and will improve the overall user experience. Thank you and the development team for taking another look at this problem and finding a solution. | |
9/24/2024 3:59 PM | Thank you, Jessica for confirming! I am attaching this case and case 07207893 to a ticket in Development and they will be working on resolving this issue. I hope to have an update soon! Natalia | |
1/20/2025 10:30 PM | Hello Jessica Kruppa, Ex Libris Development has completed an initial assessment of this issue. After taking into account a number of factors including impact, scope, technical complexity, functional prerequisites, and existing development priorities, Development has set a target for resolving this issue no later than July 2025. Please note that this is a preliminary estimate only, and is subject to change due to ongoing review and assessment of development priorities. Best regards, For translation of this message to additional languages, see here: https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Cross_Product/Support/030_Salesforce/Automated_Process_Comment_Translations/Development_Target_Date_for_Release | |
1/20/2025 10:32 PM | Hello Jessica Kruppa, We are glad to update that the target date for providing a solution for this issue has changed to June 2025. We will notify you if there are any further changes to the target date. Best regards, https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Cross_Product/Support/030_Salesforce/Automated_Process_Comment_Translations/Development_Target_Date_for_Release_Updated | |
2/19/2025 2:19 PM | Good Evening Jess: #1. The system parameter that I referenced I’d be testing is titled “sort_by_owner_group”. Here is a Knowledge Center article that describes a little more on the sort_by_owner_group parameter (all those parameters you see listed in the chart are in alphabetical order - so just skip down to “s”): #2. My actual testing of the “sort_by_owner_group” parameter on your “Much ado about nothing”, “Beloved” and “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” examples had no effect. #3. After discussing the problem with colleagues and doing some research it appears that the “sort_by_owner_group” parameter is actually being worked on by programmers with a revision expected to be put into production in June of 2025. As the parameter stands now it actually is not effecting NZ records and does not seem to have a consistent sorting effect on IZ records that are linked to NZ records. Unfortunately these limitations are effecting the records you want moved in your FRBR listings. Another problem is this: the programmer notes on this update also read that “sorting records by access options or availability will still not be possible” even after the update. I am not sure what this means but we will have to wait until the update in June to test it to find out. What I will be doing Thursday morning is sending your case up to Tier 2 so they can link it to the programming case in question. If I can assist with further questions please let me know. Thank you, Jess |