This page lists the narrative of comments given by individuals responding to the 2021 library automation perceptions survey. Comments have been redacted to remove content that identifies the indivudual or institution. To place the comments in perspective, the library type, size of collection, and the rating given for overall ILS satisfaction is provided.
There were 191 narrative comments given regarding 13 different products:
I have no knowledge of NISO Open Discovery Initiative. We have no undergraduate program (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
We don't have a 'discovery layer'; we (still) use the 'OPAC' that comes with our ILS, which is eLibrary (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7 )
Auto-Graphics is our ILS but the former director and our IT department chose to no use the integrated system with our electronic resources. However, we may consider this in the future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
Insignia claims it has a discovery layer and can do API's, but I do not see it that way in terms of satisfying an authenticate description of discovery. They use a tabbed environment in the OPAC, with some api technology, that allows them to pull in some citations from an EBSCO database, via an older EBSCO api, that EBSCO doesn't really market. It's a clunky way to manage or discover information. The users have to know which tab to go to. Also, [...] University is sandwiching in resources under "journals and articles" tab that are not journals. the tab "local" is supposed to indicate your "local" physical holdings. The user has to login in to see this tabbed environment. The user has to intuit or have heavy handed training, "point click, don't think about the rationality of it." I don't even try to educate anyone on it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1 )
As part of the [...] , we have used the Discovery resources available from the Wyoming State Library and the University of Wyoming. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8 )
We left EDS EBSCO in October for cost-saving reasons as we plan to switch to the new system next year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 3 )
We do not have graduate students at our institution and therefore cannot rate EDS on graduate student use. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7 )
I wish we had one. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6 )
We have looked at EBSCO discovery Services in the past but we are a very small college library and cannot afford the cost of these services. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9 )
We have looked at EBSCO discovery Services in the past but we are a very small college library and cannot afford the cost of these services. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9 )
We do not have a discover service due to expense (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9 )
I do not use a discovery service. My students interact with each database or library interface (Follett) separately. In a Prek- 12th grade school, having separate places to find information or materials to read is very important in the service for our users. (Library type: Library Personnel; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9 )
Summon is a good, reliable discovery service but if we move to Alma it makes sense to switch to Primo VE which is better integrated with Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4 )
Our library's printed collections are not included in the discovery service (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7 )
A lot of ebook titles show up from the packages we don't subscribe to and this frustrates users since the links don't work. The vendor said they cannot be removed. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6 )
We do not use the service. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9 )
We just started using this service it is too early to tell if it will be helpful. We also just started a MBA program and its too early to determine how effective it is. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5 )
We just started using this service it is too early to tell if it will be helpful. We also just started a MBA program and its too early to determine how effective it is. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5 )
We will be discontinuing Ebsco Discovery at the end of this year because of their withdrawal of their current interface. The new interface and its features do not work for our students. They have been willing to extend their current interface until the end of this academic year for us, but not longer. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8 )
We are in the middle of a migration and will not be live with the ILS until March 1. I cannot accurately answer these questions at this time. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
Not sure what it is (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9 )
Aspen Discovery is a huge improvement from our prior discovery layer (SirsiDynix Enterprise) (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9 )
This is the premier discovery service for both academic and other library types. It has great support, and is constantly evolving in a positive way with an aggressive release schedule for new versions. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8 )
We are in the second group to migrate, so we are not on Aspen yet. We will be using Enterprise through March 2022, as consortia has chosen a phased implementation. I do not have opinions on Aspen at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
UX is gravely important from a public library standpoint. Ease of access and connectivity are what keep patrons from getting to frustrated and giving up. Academic libraries sometimes require a little more digging from users. BiblioCore makes most everything in the public access needs, easy and accessible. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8 )
BiblioCore connects directly to our ILS, vendors, and content pulling resources and extrapolating data to present a much more fluid and complete picture of our catalog. It ties many sources together such as content café, OverDrive, Sierra web management. Sierra's OPAC offered complete HTML customization but required much upkeep to display our catalog and content in meaningful way. It replaces and connects our e-materials without the need of authorizing in-between. BiblioCore does all of this gracefully with some initial light to medium difficulty integration work. The support ticketing team and community outshines the product itself as they are always quick to respond and helpful. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8 )
We do not use Enterprise (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7 )
It works well enough for our students, and we regularly tweak/clean up the management side to improve results. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9 )
Cost keeps increasing for EDS, and one of our librarians worked with EBSCO to specifically address discovery of a competitor's resources that we subscribe to (ProQuest). (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
I love using EBSCO's Discovery Service and would only consider migrating to Primo if we migrate our ILS to Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2 )
This is my first experience with Ebsco Discovery. It's fast and consistent. That said, we need to tweak it so that results are more interfiled - results lean heavily Ebsco. It's almost like our other databases don't exist. Our first results are often not even in our holdings and students/faculty see 'request with ILL' which isn't ideal. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
The "corporate feuding" between EBSCO (EDS provider) and Innovative (Encore Duet provider) has caused numerous technical difficulties and administrative headaches for those of us using Encore Duet with EDS as our discovery service. Looking forward to other options when our contract expires in 2022. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
We are high school (so graduate/undergraduate obviously doesn't refer to us); we just implemented so hard to rate effectiveness. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6 )
In addition to using EDS for our discovery services, we also use VuFind as an OPAC for print and ebooks. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8 )
Our college does not offer a graduate level program but there was no N/A option. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7 )
Implementation was rocky from both ends: poorly/hastily planned on our part due to short notice on funding; badly communicated and full of poorly-managed technical issues on vendor's end. Support has been mediocre and generally unresponsive. We are unlikely to continue with EDS in the long term. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3 )
Not intuitive for students. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
Our next discovery will depend on LSP that we choose. If we decide to go with Folio, we will continue using EDS. If we choose Alma or WorldShare, we will switch to their discovery service. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
We use Primo VE as our public-facing catalog. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
It's not really working for us as a public library. We probably won't continue in future. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9 )
tired of interoperability of EDS with Proquest databases - these two vendors need to work together (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
I'm going to look up NISO Open Discovery Initiative. EDS is okay. The back end is VERY complex and difficult to understand for a librarian who takes care of multiple systems. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8 )
It's very frustrating that EBSCO Discovery doesn't include ProQuest products. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
We do not have the staff talent to properly manage EDS and that is part of dissatisfaction with it. I know nothing about NISO Open Discovery. Pika discovery interface with EDS. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
Our supplier is also rolling out a new interface which we are considering (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8 )
It would be nice if competing vendors would make their metadata available for inclusion in a discovery system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9 )
We are a grades 6-12 so some of this doesn't apply. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8 )
We have a fairly extensive (not very usable) menu of search widgets in our discovery service that link to resources that can't be effectively searched by eds. No discovery service is perfect, but this biases search results and makes it harder to use. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5 )
We find EDS does not work well with ProQuest Databases and we have had to put a button (Connector) for our top ProQuest databases. It is definitely not intuitive for our students. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 0 )
There are a lot of settings and options that are under control of the library. This is good to have granular control. However, this makes management of the backend admin portal complicated. The good news is that EBSCO's customer service is very helpful and will make setting adjustments for you. Not as clean of an interface as Summon. We are probably a couple of years out on considering Summon when the interface between Sierra and Summon will be more developed. Intending to bring in IR content in through OAI-MH. Submitting print holdings has been cumbersome because we only have attached items instead of holdings statements. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
I think more user instruction would improve our users understanding of the Discovery Service and therefore its effectiveness. I don't the lack of effectiveness is due to the product, but rather due to a lack of understanding of how it works. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5 )
We do not have information on the NISO Open Discovery Initiative at this time in order to offer a rating the importance of it. Therefore, I entered "5" to be in the middle. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7 )
We our an independent secondary school so many of these questions don't apply to us. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9 )
We also use VuFind. While it is technically a discovery layer, we use it as a catalog. So it holds records for our print books and journals as well as records for e-resources we own outright. We are only just rolling out VuFind, having acquired it along with FOLIO, and so can't yet comment on how effective it is in practice. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5 )
Was not aware of NISO ODI would have been useful to review. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3 )
This is an interesting question. "How do you rate the service's objectivity relative to coverage of resources across publishers? (Is there any bias shown for any publisher or aggregator?)" I wish the scale had indicated which side was no bias and which was lots of bias. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4 )
EBSCO and JSTOR do not integrate as well as they should. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3 )
Not as user-friendly as it should be. We are still on the legacy version and have not yet migrated to the updated version, so this is not an evaluation of the newer version of the product. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
Enterprise is pretty good and very configurable, but it suffers from federating multiple search sources. If we do change it will be to something with a unified single index - eg going back to EDS with a link into Enterprise. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
We like EDS very much, but it limits us to almost entirely subscribing to databases that are covered in EDS. For example, we'd like to add more ProQuest resources, but we know that students will not come across many PQ articles because they use EDS most of the time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
The [...] Libraries implemented VuFind in 2009-2010 and still use it. We acquired and implemented EDS in 2019 because we concluded that we needed a commercial Web-scale discovery service. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7 )
We switched from Primo to EDS in 2021. We were supremely unhappy with Ex Libris' service and with the discovery layer's functionality. Things have not really improved with the move to EBSCO. The only real positive from the move is that our e-subscriptions are very EBSCO-heavy...which clearly works well(-ish) with an EBSCO discovery layer. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
EDS does not handle OA resources very well, especially for alumni or outside (i.e., off-campus) researchers. SirsiDynix Cloudsource OA+ is aggregating from hundreds of OA sources daily. EDS also does not include OER materials. If our budget should tighten, I can conceivably drop subscriptions in favor of keeping Cloudsource OA+ (for the negotiated price) because it will continue to grow. It currently has over 40+ million articles in addition to paid subscriptions making them more easily findable. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9 )
We maintain VuFind for monograph items and local holdings. It is much easier to use than EDS for those resources. EDS is maintained mostly for continuing resources, with monographs included. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7 )
[...] is a consortium supporting 24 publicly funded colleges in Ontario. 13 of the colleges participate in a Sirsi consortium that is managed by OCLS and use Symphony. 11 colleges participate in a shared licence to EDS. 4 of the colleges use Summon. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4 )
Our EBSCO Discovery Service is no longer a separate interface, results are fed through our instance of SirsiDynix Enterprise, which combines library catalogue, discovery layer and website. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
Indexing of non-EBSCO databases and linking to full-text continues to be an issue. EDS does not index, fully index, or allow for full-text searching of many of our databases, including our ProQuest databases. Linking to full-text could also be improved, as we mainly rely on OpenURL linking to connect to non-EBSCO content. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4 )
EDS does now play well with Proquest products. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9 )
My impression is that EBSCO's Discovery system has far superior indexing to the table of contents level and far more already indexed resources than does ExLibris' Primo system and its Community Zone. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8 )
EBSCO Discovery Service is added onto Enterprise so the functionality is a little different. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
Had Encore Synergy, but it was disabled and is being discontinued by Innovative because of security issues. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5 )
How effective is the discovery service for Graduate students? Not applicable: no graduate students. How would you rate the importance of the NISO Open Discovery Initiative? Don't know much about it. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6 )
We implemented Alma & Primo VE as part of the [...] libraries' initiative last summer (July 2021). We are still are still working to make sure electronic resources are displaying correctly, and doing catalog cleanup (especially related to migration, and print to electronic records). Not a commentary on the tool, just saying that I would be better able to comment on discovery next year when we have a few more things cleaned up. My answer on objectivity is neutral because I don't feel like I can answer that accurately yet. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8 )
Having just learned what NISO is, we feel it is an initiative we would like to support in the future. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5 )
This section of the survey is not constructed for public libraries. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6 )
We do not use a discovery platform. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9 )
We are currently in the implementation process. I can answer these question next year. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6 )
We're a research library, but not an academic one, so didn't rate undergraduate, graduate, or faculty use. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8 )
SirsiDynix Enterprise seems geared more toward the needs of public libraries. It is not able to discover much of what we subscribe to, e.g.: EBSCO eBooks, Films on Demand, etc. Very often it fails to even discover our SirsiDynix Symphony holdings. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
Our administration does not think a discovery service is necessary. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8 )
Have cancelled Ebsco Discovery Service in 2022 (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7 )
Note that we provide our discovery layer to K12 schools so our responses for undergraduate and faculty are for K12 students and K12 teachers. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7 )
I don't work with this product, so cannot provide ratings. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9 )
N/A (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
I don’t think students quite understand the difference between EBSCO and EDS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5 )
We're disappointed in how the "Newspaper Search" feature effectively broke the single search box, since there are now titles only available through that separate interface. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4 )
It takes way too much tweaking to get this product to search our resources correctly. It if was not part of our consortium and our catalog we would simply forgo having it and direct users directly to databases which have much more functional searching capabilities. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4 )
The discrepancy with EBSCO need to be fully addressed. It challenges library users. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7 )
Things are such a mess that I would avoid choosing a discovery tool that does not directly align with your predominate choice in database vendors. In other words, if you're heavily invested in EBSCO, choose EDS etc. otherwise it's a giant mess. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5 )
Our library is a specialized one and doesn't provide services to students and faculty. (Library type: Special; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6 )
[...] (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7 )
The previous answer says Primo, this is incorrect. Discovery is EDS - Primo is used as ILS / library holdings search only (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4 )
Summon was much easier to configure than Primo and did a better job with Electronic resources but Primo does work. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
We mostly direct students to Google Scholar. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2 )
Not user-friendly with My account in a consortium setting. Patron's home library is not listed first above any other other accounts set up through resource sharing. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3 )
We are currently migrating from Primo Classic to Primo VE and have been surprised at some of the changes. There actually seems to be a slight loss of functionality. This may be a mistaken impression; vendor has been slow to respond to questions about it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8 )
Current discovery service (Primo) is not a one-stop-shop. Currently moving to implementation of PrimoVE which is. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8 )
We have recently upgraded from Primo to Primo VE. The changes in support overhead have been large. The move also opens up more development of the service that we can undertake. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8 )
We actually have not fully implemented Primo VE discovery, because its default search-all search does include EBSCOhost databases, due to the business fight between ProQuest/Ex Libris and EBSCO. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2 )
We've been using our discovery service for nearly five years now. Our librarians' concerns that a discovery service would undermine students' information literacy, leading them to think that search strategy was irrelevant, seem to have been unfounded. However, other concerns about vendor lockin have been borne out, as our chosen vendor first merged with Proquest and now has been acquired by Clarivate. As SPARC recently warned, the library systems marketplace is trending towards an Elsevier-Clarivate duopoly which is not in the best interest of libraries or their users. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
Overall, everyone is fairly satisfied with Primo. Electronic resource results seem to be the weak point although I believe the coverage is improving all the time. We are currently migrating to Primo VE, which from a configuration standpoint, is a vast improvement. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8 )
For Library Resources the product in use is Primo For Electronic Resources the product in use is EBSCO Discovery Service (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8 )
Not at this point. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8 )
[...] dis not an academic library, but a research and reference library serving the population of the state of Queensland. The user community is very broad, from general public, to researchers and also people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities and First Nations' communities. The discovery service meets the needs of our user community in general, but some aspects of search and discovery are complex for some. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8 )
We use Primo as a discovery service for print collections and a limited number of eresources such as ebooks. We have also linked Primo to some of the other eresources. However, we will retain EDS because Ebsco is MUCH easier to work with and EDS does a better job with the Humanities databases such as the Atla Religion database, than Primo or whatever ExLibris is calling their discovery layer, It is a real shame that ExLibris or Proquest won't work with Ebsco so there aren't competing products libraries have to use just so library users can find resources. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
We added Primo lately and many functions are not fully running yet. Hope, we will be satisfied with it when it is functioning in 100% capacity. Our Koha is integrated with Primo. Works perfect so far! (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7 )
Our library can add book cover images for SOME books but not all books. We'd like a simple way to add book cover images for ALL books in our library discovery service. This would create a better visual experience for discovery users. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8 )
In actual practice, most of our librarians treat Primo primarily as a catalog interface for physical book discovery, and direct users to individual databases to do actual research. In actual practice, a significant proportion of our users begin their searches in Google Scholar or on publisher websites. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2 )
Possibly, the relatively small number of viable large scale Discovery competitors is causing a perceived vendor reluctance or stagnation in keeping pace with technological development and feature updates. The platform is currently utilising a close to end of life (31 Dec 2021) web framework that is not able to take advantage of many recent web technology advancements and a vendor roadmap stating that it will take several more years before migrating to a newer framework. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7 )
We don't know what NISO Open Discovery Initiative is. We don't undergraduate, graduate students or faculty members. (Library type: Special; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7 )
We are part of a consortium, so decisions are made at the consortial level (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
none (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8 )
It's frustrating that the industry is so heavily dominated by Ex Libris. We don't have a lot of choice but to stay with them, at this point. Because they are so big, their changes tend to be very generalized, and there is often no recourse if a change they make affects you negatively, because they have to go with what works for the most folks and is easiest to program and maintain. Their CDI continues to be very problematic in accuracy of retrieval and display, not to mention poor integration with local and consortial records. Their documentation continues to be poorly organized and inadequately searchable, as well as out of date. Customization of the Discovery interface is arcane and it's challenging to figure out where everything is and how it might (or might not) be editable. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6 )
Promo has improved tremendously in the past several years. We also use EBSCO Discovery Service and are considering dropping the service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
Good for known-item-search, not good enough for systematic searches with controlled vocabularies. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8 )
We went live with Primo/Alma in January 2020. The system offers a lot of useful functionality, especially compared to our legacy ILS, Voyager. Things we love: getting record updates from OCLC automatically; getting ebook collection updates automatically from the CZ; SSO functionality; using a Network to manage consortial resources; robust Analytics and reporting functionality; integrated COUNTER5 stats. We are disappointed in some major defects in Primo which affect the user experience - an advanced date search filter that has been broken for years, and other basic functionality that seems to break not infrequently, like browsing by subject headings. Preliminary UX testing showed that students have difficulty locating the full-text of articles. ExLibris often doesn't make these defects/bugs known, you have to search for info on listservs and open cases with the vendor, which takes a lot of time to describe the issue, provide screenshots, etc. The customer support ranges wildly - it can be very helpful and fast, with offers to discuss on the phone/video and also, terrible, with weeks/months going by with no response, incorrect information, no offers to connect on the phone/video, and documentation that seems to be written by many different people using different terminology to describe things. The ERM functionality has been pretty good, but there are many collections that are lacking decent metadata, making them difficult to discover in Primo. The new CDI index is a "black box" and it can be difficult to determine where some metadata is coming from and how to troubleshoot. Getting all of our electronic collections to surface in Primo has been an ongoing task since migration. The question about bias shown for any publisher or aggregator is difficult because the issue is more about other vendors like EBSCO and InfoBase who refuse to share quality metadata with ExL, therefore ProQuest results are more discoverable. Alma/Primo is perhaps a bit "overbuilt" for a small college library, and simple tasks require a complicated workflow in Alma. NERS improvements, etc. sometimes feel like they are designed for the bigger universities and not for small libraries. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5 )
I'm not familiar with Niso, so left that blank (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4 )
It's not great, but we don't really know of anything better at the moment. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5 )
My colleagues and I have great ideas we would like to implement, but we are confined by the system. Very small things that would make the user experience better is unchangeable in the system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6 )
We are a member of a consortium with limited control of purchasing. Additionally, there are few viable options for libraries of our size. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6 )
We are in the first year of using this ILS and discovery system so still learning it and tweaking things to make it more effective and user friendly. I expect that the effectiveness scores for Primo will go up as we're able to customize the system for our users and collections. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7 )
The vendor records coming in from outside companies have problematic metadata and cause a lot of linking issues. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6 )
As of right now, the discovery service has a lot more capability than we have yet been able to take advantage of, but we are optimistic we will take advantage of these capabilities in the future. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
As a small, rural, 2-yr. community college (~500 FTE) the Primo service is excessive for out students. It seems less importance for instruction where library database introduction and value is more crucial. Given our small collection we just don't have a sizable enough knowledge base (in Primo) for it to provide a good UX. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4 )
Two areas we would like to improve: 1. Delay in resources acquired for the local collection appearing in discovery - can be 24-36 hours 2. Items appearing as 'full-text' subject to delays before being updated in the Central Discovery Index. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8 )
The [...] consortia does not have a collections at this time, Content is owned by the individual institutions. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
We have access to Primo, though our affiliation with [...] , but we have not implemented Primo as a discovery system on our [...] library site yet. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7 )
Primo is a package with Alma, so it is unlikely we would change anytime remotely soon. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
Library is currently awaiting further development and functionality from Vega prior to launching the discovery service. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
We do have some concerns about objectivity related to the Clarivate acquisition of Proquest. ERM seems unnecessarily complicated in Alma compared to our previous library system's ERM system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7 )
As the [...], our users are not limited to those from academia; we have also have business and personal users, whose needs are different from those user groups listed. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6 )
We don't know much about NISO. Open-source systems are difficult when the main obstacle is human resources. We are too few here in Iceland. Primo is good for discovery of electronic resources but it is less successful in simple discovery functions and not much liked by public and school libraries in the consortia. They are presented with material they don't want. We have also faced difficulties on our side, lacking staff and expertise in a very complicated environment. We have had difficulties in providing access to our electronic material and students find Primo confusing. Also, it doesn't handle Icelandic traditions well, f.ex. finding Icelandic names. Authorities are also not well presented. Browsing for names is discouraged but that is very valuable when you have 170 Jón Jónssons' that need to be differentiated. One discovery platform for 300 libraries of all kinds is challenging and we have not been very successful. Hopefully it will change with the new system, and we are getting good support during the configuration process. We will have more platforms in Alma/Primo VE. We don't quite understand the questions about coverage of collections and objectivity. Primo doesn't provide the material, but we have seen that it wants to promote Proquest material that we don't buy. We have had to request tha Primo to show only what we buy from Proquest - not everything. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5 )
This comment is about your last question about the NISO Open Discovery Initiative. I don't know anything about the initiative, and today was the first day I Googled the initiative. If I knew more about the NISO Open Discovery Initiative, I would have given it a rating higher than zero. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8 )
We continue to work with the vendor to fine tune results and enhance the user experience (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7 )
Any faults are largely due to us not yet setting up processes for harvesting various information sources due to being exhausted by moving our changing our ILS and ERMS in the 6 months or so prior to our Jan 2021 go live with Alma/Primo, and the associated bedding down since. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8 )
We are in the process of implementing Alma/Primo VE so can't rate the platform. (Library type: ; collection size: medium)
Our institution does not have undergraduate students, so that question is not applicable. In terms of NISO, other factors took precedence in our choice of this discovery service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8 )
Linking errors to EBSCO resources is far too common of an issue. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7 )
1. Stalemates with vendors such as EBSCO are unreasonable because the product should be about the stakeholders and not either company's self-interests. 2. Requires a high degree of customization, which is difficult for small libraries to accomplish when first using the product. 3. Overly complicated migration process with unrealistic time demands for staff. 4. Cost, in terms of return on investment, is questionable, especially considering that the pricing models involve extra charges which punish libraries for having large collections. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6 )
The implementation of citation metadata (Central Discovery Index) needs further development. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
We upgraded to Primo VE from Primo in 2021, as part of our migration from Aleph to Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7 )
This is the first discovery system the library has used. There has been more of a learning curve than expected and some students and faculty find searching everything at once very confusing and overwhelming. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8 )
Primo is good but there are certain databases which we do not include because they don't get indexed well or won't resolve well. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8 )
We don't have graduate students. I don't know what the NISO Open Discovery Initiative is. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
Las versiones nuevas de Primo VE no incluyen, a veces, funcionalidades de versiones anteriores que funcionan muy bien en Primo. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5 )
The discovery layer serves it's purpose, but is primarily used as a physical resource catalog. Instruction still centers around individual databases. The NISO Discovery Initiative is a nice thought, but there is one person in charge of systems and discovery on our campus. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5 )
The [...] implemented Primo (what is now referred to as Primo Back Office) in 2014. In 2020, we migrated to Alma/Primo VE. I consider Primo VE to be separate from Primo so I selected -Other- and listed 2020 as the year of implementation. Additionally, the Likert scale for -How do you rate the service's objectivity relative to coverage of resources across publishers?- is unclear to me so I left it blank. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6 )
The linking needs to be better in Discovery systems. This is the most important think that needs improvement. The amount of bad links pose an existential threat to libraries as students get a bad impression of our capabilities especially compaired to Google who has few bad links pop up in search results. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3 )
We are a standalone law school, so no undergraduates. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9 )
Just to note that "Summon" and "Summon Over Alma" have distinctive functionalities. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
We have been very disappointed with the linking issues found in our discovery layer. It's important to note that while Summon (an Ex Libris product) does not link reliably to EBSCO content, our usage of EBSCO resources is more than three times that of ProQuest products. Our numbers indicate that students are using EBSCO content heavily and likely going directly to our database A-Z list to access EBSCO databases, rather than using Summon. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
We obtain our discovery service through a consortial contract. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6 )
Duplicates are a huge problem. They have things for you to select, but they don't always have the metadata for it to put in the index, so it is hard to know if things you select are going to appear or not. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7 )
We would only change to Primo VE from Summon if/when migrating to Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
Very satisfied on the continued development of Summon and enhancements and growth of the product's design and data. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7 )
Funny, I am not very familiar or yet informed about the NISO Open Discovery Initiative... (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
Ideologically, ODI is a great initiative, and I'm sure all libraries agree with its stated mission. That said, why are representatives from EBSCO and ProQuest on the committee when the companies do not share metadata with each other? It's kafkaesque that the very companies flaunting the ODI guidelines also define them. I'm pessimistic about any progress being made given this situation. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
Summon works (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7 )
Summon isn’t the newest kid on the block, but in discovery that’s not as much of a hindrance as one might think. The product has had a lot of time to mature and the knowledge base in particular is probably still one of the best, if not the best. For an institution like [...] that has multiple integrations built, there’s no point in going through the extreme expense and labor of a system migration unless the new system performs measurably better than the old one. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5 )
We have noticed improvements in Summon's functionality (Library type: Theology; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8 )
We've had several instances where our Alma updates do not get updated in Summon. The lag time between Alma updates becoming visible in Summon is our primary reason why we are moving to Primo. We wish to be able to make corrections to broken links and add new materials to our catalog in real-time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8 )
Our issues weren't entirely with Summon, but we have hopes of several things working better with a more closely coupled ILS/discovery layer when we move to Alma/Primo. At the same time, with Summon and Primo being offered by the same vendor and being fairly similar products, we don't feel as if it's going to be a huge change (for better and for worse!). We have in the past considered EDS, and (to a much lesser extent; it was ruled out pretty early on) WDS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2 )
Further integration between Sierra & Summon is improving the service for our users (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7 )
Changes to 'Sierra via SUMMON' is an improvement. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7 )
We have only recently (November 2021) moved to Summon and a fair judgement would only be after extensive use in a normal academic year. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7 )
Library is currently awaiting further development and functionality from Vega prior to launching the discovery service. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8 )
VuFind uses the EDS API as a source for online items (articles, conference papers, reports etc). (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9 )
How do you rate the service's objectivity relative to coverage of resources across publishers? (9): I'm not aware of a bias. Also: we always heavily relied on our consortial index, but also used PrimoCentral. At the end of this year we will unsubscribe from PrimoCentral and only use the consortial index. Thus it would be "our" bias only then. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
NISO Open Initiative does not directly apply to VuFind. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4 )
I was not familiar with the NISO Open Discovery Initiative, but I've looked it up and find it very interesting. Will need to do some more reading before I can answer the next question about importance. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7 )
The biggest pain point we encounter is the way that WorldCat displays results. It's not always intuitively clear to our users which items are held by the library and which are not until it is explained at length to them. The library world jargon used in the system makes sense for librarians, but not necessarily for end users and patrons. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
As with all of our OCLC products, we would certainly be considering replacement if the budget allowed. Our institution is undergoing prioritization in order to remain fiscally sound and monies to replace existing products are not available. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
Was recently "modernized" and it has new features, but a few more are still needed to create an improved service. I was in a focus group and several exciting features will be released in 2022. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8 )
I do not know what the NISO Open Discovery Iniative is. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8 )
Not familiar with Niso Open Discovery initiative. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5 )
The latest upgrade has enhanced the UX. We still have problems with it regarding e-resources: pointing to resources we do not own/subscribe to. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5 )
Excellent usability and scope. Needs improvements in eresource linking prioritisation. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8 )
the vendor being an independent non-profit organiation played an important role in the selection process. For ILL and print resource sharing this also proved to be the right decision, as competitive products did not live up to strength of the cooperative. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6 )
We are a private high school and WorldCat Discovery was a huge improvement over III's Millenium, particularly at the start of the pandemic. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
Part of our reason for selecting OCLC WMS as our new ILS platform was that it made it cost-effective to add a Discovery tool that we knew wouldn't have any integration issues with the catalog. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7 )
Colleagues within the library have expressed a desire for refinements in relevance and precision. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
I don't have recent knowledge of the NISO Open Discovery Initiative (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
I've never heard of the Niso open discovery initiative. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6 )
I am not aware of the NISO Open Discovery Initiative to provide an accurate rating. The discovery service is alright, but there are still plenty of databases that even OCLC cannot work with. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5 )
Our biggest problem is that the clustering of electronic and print materials is very error-prone. We get completely different works and editions clustered together. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8 )
We do not have a lot of information about the NISO Open Discovery Initiative. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8 )
OCLC Worldcat Discovery Service seemed to hold such promise and potential when we migrated in 2016. We (and many others) have since found flaws in the relevance algorithms that were acknowledged by OCLC 4 years ago. They continue to claim they will fix the issues but they have yet to do so. It is very disappointing. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4 )
People still expect a Google-like experience, and the search retrieval algorithms in the library discovery space are not up to the task. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4 )
We had the EBSCO product and were very pleased with it; however, we had to cancel for budgetary reasons. WorldCat Discovery was included with our WMS at no additional charge or very little extra monies. It has improved over the last few years. It is really an enhanced view of the catalog with articles , etc. added. I do not like the way it displays the catalog records, and we continue to offer WorldCat Local for the display and access it provides. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8 )
We have seen some gradual improvement over the years. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7 )
|
|
|