Related to this (and probably not worth making a separate idea about?), I think the wording in the 'unpublished changes' banner is very misleading for list publishers without the Acquisitions role, ie academics, when you have Force Review switched on.
It currently says 'Unpublished changes! Your changes have been saved, but not published. The library acquisitions team will review the list for changes.'
(Screenshot below, from Talis' support article here https://support.talis.com/hc/en-us/articles/205644441-Publish-Review-workflow-options)
To me, this reads as though it's telling them we'll review the list anyway rather than emphasizing we will review the changes *when it has been published*.
It would be great if this wording was changed to something more like what it is for those who do not have Force Review on, eg: 'Unpublished changes! If you would like the library acquisitions team to review the list for changes, please select 'Publish.'
(I raised this with Talis when we switched on Force Review last autumn, and the feedback was logged with the Product team, but I haven't heard anything back as yet and the screenshot in the support article looks the same, so I assume it hasn't been changed.)
We've also seen the number of lists with 'published with unpublished changes' status go up, and I suspect a lot of the time it's us when we link an item to a list on receipt or similar, as well as academics forgetting to publish. I had to do a cleanup exercise recently which was time consuming (as I had to check which actually had noteworthy changes and might need a review requested).
I would love the warning banner to be pinned, and I also like Lucy's idea about highlighting the unpublished changes on the list. This would be a lot easier than clicking through to look at all the different 'recent changes' that may have been done in several batches.
This is similar to the following suggestion on the TADC ideas forum which is very popular, though that one refers to deletion of bookmarks with associated TADC requests, rather than the whole list - same principle.
I think it would be hugely helpful if it could be flagged up when someone is trying to remove an item that has a live/referred digitisation (or archive an entire list with any of these on it). The extra step built into Rollover last year does help identify these, but we need to know as it happens, not just once a year. A warning for them, and an email for us if they go ahead and do it, would be great.
We experience similar woes when the title/code of a module change and the list & any digitisations need editing to reflect this. I encourage staff to edit the existing list title/hierarchy module & digitisations, instead of redoing them completely, to retain links... but often the Faculty Engagement team will send over an email asking us to 'copy over this list to create a new one with this new module info, then archive the obsolete one' when the title/code have changed, so I'd like there to be something in place to catch any of these that have digitisations attached that someone may forget to edit and attempt to archive!
We would appreciate this at Surrey too - as well as being clearer for the students, it would be clearer for staff reviewing the reading lists, so they don't accidentally order unnecessary extra copies when checking our purchase ratios (we only bookmark one of the editions).
The workaround would be library/student notes explaining any edition is okay, but this still involves extra searching to find the alternative versions, as they don't always FRBRise on Primo so the 'see other formats/editions' button isn't reliable.
We think this is an interesting idea and will be of benefit to others so will raise this for consideration for the next Reviews work that we do.
16 votes1 comment · Talis Aspire Digitised Content » Request details & Upload · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
59 votesunder review · 9 comments · Talis Aspire Reading Lists » Reviews · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
7 votes0 comments · Talis Aspire Digitised Content » Request details & Upload · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
55 votes10 comments · Talis Aspire Reading Lists » Config & Customisation · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
Please do continue to vote and add your use case to this idea. As votes and comments are added we are able to use these to review and build a case for the idea.
We've had quite a few instances recently of ebook platform changes where we've had to identify those bookmarks that need changes then go in and edit them individually. It would be hugely helpful if Aspire could provide the ability to edit links in bulk.
Similarly we sometimes end up with links from a source bookmarked from different URLs/different routes in to a resource eg some have gone through dx.doi.org/.... and others through the URL, and we've gone through one by one making these links consistent across Aspire. Again it would save time if we could do this in bulk.
We will be enabling this as part of the New List Edit so that you can perform the same View and Export options as you can without needing to switch to the student view.
Would love this - I raised it with Talis back in spring when we first had the V2 list edit role enabled to test things out (along with the 'Add to Bookmarks' option on an existing bookmark only being possible when viewing as student - thankfully this has now been enabled in edit mode too!) and they mentioned that other institutions had raised this too and they would be reviewing it. It would be great if it was sorted out sooner rather than later now academics are editing their lists, so they get a good impression of Talis and stay engaged.
9 votesstarted · 4 comments · Talis Aspire Reading Lists » Viewing Lists & Items · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
We'd really like this feature to return as well - any updates?
With New List Edit the Delete warning is already much stronger, however, this specific request has come up in feedback and we plan to address this with clearer messaging about the impact on Digitisations. This is not currently scheduled but we will update as this moves to the top of our priorities.
It would be extremely helpful if TADC admin would receive a notification when a bookmark with a digitisation was removed, so we can withdraw it and keep TADC tidy and accurate as a matter of course rather than just pick these up at the annual rollover (which is a busy time of year).
15 votesunder review · 6 comments · Talis Aspire Reading Lists » List Editing · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
I'd also like to echo Hannah's point that any list-level notes would be useful to see in Reviews - ideally on the listreviews homepage so they're visible at a glance without having to click through to check.
We can see how this would be useful for odd lists that have something noteworthy about them - although for efficiency, we try to keep lists as much as possible within set policies, so for this reason we'd want to avoid academic staff being able to enter notes (eg with special requests!), just librarians.
We would ideally want this to log date and user details automatically so we can keep track.
If the library admin note field at list level was included in the All Lists report that could be filtered on, this would be helpful too. (eg we currently use the List Description field to state in which semester a course is running, which is purely for the benefit of library staff, and would be better in an admin-only note and where we could filter for analytics)