Library Technology Guides

---

Statistical Report for

Statistics according to type and size categories

The following table presents the 2022 results according to the type and size of the library.

Discovery Comments (survey2022)

[...] is using EDS (not Encore), from 2017, so your details need to be updated. Thanks (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We used EDS for 18 months and found it unsatisfactory. Integration with our Koha ILS was poor; vendor support from EBSCO was abysmal. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Many of the issues related to our discovery service are due to our ILS rather than the discovery product itself. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

We just began using EDS and are currently satisfied with our results. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are in a consortium which decides system selections for member libraries. The current system, Alma/Primo, is clearly not designed for consortium and resource sharing. eg, The system does not give patrons an option to request paper book from resource sharing libraries when their home library has an Ebook. We did not have such resource sharing issue on our previous OPAC or discovery systems. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We will have a discovery system in place after the migration from Polaris to OCLC, WMS. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

ODI has no enforcement. Both ProQuest and EBSCO have members sitting on the committee but they won't share metadata with each other. What's the point of this project if the people writing it don't even abide by its guidelines? It's really frustrating. I appreciate the work but without enforcement, the ODI falls prey to the very bad faith of vendors. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Need better way to bring together and make accessible in-house created Archival collections. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Worldcat Discovery is very confusing for users because they often get confused as to why they can see the resources but the library does not own the items. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We will be migrating to EDS in the spring of 2023 (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Reason for the lower scores for Graduate students and Faculty Members is that these cohorts tend to use discipline or research specific databases. Of note: about 50% of access to our electronic content is via reading list software (e.g. eReserve,). These links are embedded in our Learning Management System, i.e. not accessed via our discovery service (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Until last year we used the PrimoCentral index. Since 2022 we are using the index of our library consortium ("K10plus-Zentral"). (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

If we migrate to a new system, I will miss using EBSCO's EDS. It has been a solid workhorse over the years, but FOLIO is not an option for us at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

Discovery system is run through a central office. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Just like Alma, when Primo works it's great. When it has an issue it can be difficult to fix. My biggest problem is that I will discover an issue with how our links are connecting and Ex Libris will insist that it's not their fault. After talking to the vendor, it is almost always clear that it is Ex Libris' fault and it has to be fixed on their end. When I finally get back with Ex Libris, they can generally fix the issue within hours, but it's annoying that they won't try to help until I've gone through the vendor first. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

There have been a lot of challenges connecting EDS to FOLIO for my account functionality. We have been providing a lot of feedback to make improvements and EBSCO has been doing a good job listening and making improvements. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Still waiting on WorldCat Discovery to get better. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Objectivity is very challenging to assess. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have been less than satisfied with Worldshare Discovery. They've recently enhanced and improved their search algorithm. but they'd been promising improvements for the past 4 years. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Open Source is not an option for our institution due to procurement requirements. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Thank you for including [...]. As an FYI, we had EBSCO Discovery Service as our discovery layer, and in the future recommend you consider adding discovery service survey questions for non-Academic libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We will be moving to a combined Discovery service at the same time as our ILS migration. Main campus implemented EDS in 2022 and that will be our provider once we have migrated. (Library type: Law; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We have found that eBook management of individually acquired titles from other vendors are the biggest issue with functionality of SUMMON. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We do not have a Discovery Service and haven't since we left Sirsi/Dynix as far as I know. At this time, we have just Carl.Connect. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are planning for an ILS replacement project to begin in about a year. We will most likely evaluate discovery systems in conjunction with ILS selection. But we do not have an active discovery system project at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

CDI continues to be problematic. Records combine (or don't) in incomprehensible ways. We tried to set the configuration to dedup on OCLC number, and were told only months later that it's not possible in the software to do that. I am pleased that they have combined the management of Primo into the Alma interface for many reasons, in their Primo VE software, although we did lose some functionality we rather sorely miss, and is often the case, Ex Libris did not seem prepared to help our consortium effectively migrate to VE, and seemed genuinely puzzled a number of times that we asked what felt like a reasonable question, based on our past practice in Primo. The options to use another vendor have narrowed again, and it definitely feels like Ex Libris/Clarivate is trying to do too many things and thus not doing many of them as well as we'd like. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Going from no discovery service to any discovery service would be an improvement for our library users. Ex Libris has not fulfilled its initial claims of being the "vendor neutral" discovery partner (because it was quickly acquired by Proquest) but it does a decent job of indexing subscription and open access resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

This survey doesn't consider the decoupling of discovery layer and discovery content service. Our discovery layer is Blacklight and our discovery content service is currently Primo Central Index. We are looking to switch our discovery content service to EBSCO. Additionally, this survey doesn't seem to consider things like access services -- things like link resolvers, requesting services, etc. which are very much integral to discovery. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Discovery is King. I'm pleasantly shocked when random off campus discussion with Students who despite an initial "well I never really use the Library I use Google " yet when a paper is due are aware of the name Summon and do in fact use it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We do not serve graduate students so the question regarding the effectiveness for graduate students doesn't apply to us. We implemented in the summer of 2020 and went live in the fall of 2020. There were issues during and after implementation. We are currently evaluating the effectiveness of this product because it is expensive and we are not convinced that we are getting our money's worth out of it. Usage is still higher from the direct database links than through the discovery service. Its linkage to ProQuest databases has broken several times and after a lot of back and forth between myself and EBSCO and myself and ProQuest, EBSCO had to work directly with ProQuest to resolve the issue, initially. After that, I had EBSCO refer back to the original incident to resolve because we started down the same path of troubleshooting. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

No implemented (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

EDS as integrated with Encore is difficult to administer because the two companies (EBSCO and Innovative) are constantly at odds with each other (this is from my perspective as an electronic resources administrator and mutual customer). (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

NISO initiatives are great, but unless the library community demands vendors follow them and cancel contracts when they do not, the initiatives will not be successful. Vendors will not follow NISO on their own unless their is significant financial interest to do so. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Had EBCO EDS 2014-2022, dropped because medical researchers prefer going directly to database (pubmed, scopus, embase) and embase not included in EDS index. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

VERY dissatisfied with EBSCO Discovery, especially as it integrates with FOLIO. It seems like EBSCO has internal issues that make working with them to fix bugs and change configurations very difficult. We also discovered that EDS was collecting enormous amounts of patron search & click data; EBSCO will be fixing it, but their customer reps & security team didn't know it was happening. If there was an obvious option for another single-search discovery layer, we'd be considering a move. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

While we did not directly consider the NISO Open Discovery Initiative, we were indirectly aware of it and its implications; and generally open standards, open source and open access are very important to us. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

As a Consortium we don't have students (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

For some time now, it seems that Ex Libris does not give Summon the same level of attention that it does to Primo. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Love WMS and WorldCat Discovery; good configuration options, training, and support. Truly vendor neutral! (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are a standalone law school - no undergraduates. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The Central Discovery Index is very ambitious but the limitations of some collections is frustrating. Some journals aren't available, some are only available at title-level. e-Resources are too expensive not to be accessible via Discovery. ExLibris are objective in terms of coverage, but there needs to be a way to provide adequate access to competitors' resources in Discovery, especially EBSCO. When it works as it should, Summon over Alma is a good Discovery system for undergrads. The interface refresh and increased functionality are great. But the basic access to resources needs to be prioritized. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We implemented Primo in 2012 with the understanding that it would work as a discovery layer over Millennium. It does not work nearly as smoothly as we expected, and support for enhancing it has been scant. While the same company now owns both Primo and Sierra, Sierra is still considered as a third party vendor in integrating with Primo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

I have done extensive work customizing EDS so the language is more friendly for students. New EDS is really good. It has taken into account many of my previous complaints. I still hate the fact that no ProQuest products are represented in EDS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

In addition to Primo, [...] also show users a "bento box" search results display that pulls results from other indexes in addition to Primo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Marshall Breeding's work (with others) with the NISO Open Discovery Initiative is very important, but was not available when we implemented, as we are long-term customers of Summon. That said, the Summon product continues to improve, both in complexity and ease of use, so continued research and discovery and enhancement efforts are most welcome and continue to allow Summon to grow, expand, and become even better year after year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

I can't give you a good response on the NISO Open Discovery Initiative as the decision about moving to Alma and Primo was made by our library consortium. I was not employed as Dean at the time, so I do not know how much discussion there was about the NISO standard/initiative. (Library type: ; collection size: medium)

[...] 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 have been working with EBSCO to fine tune EBSCO Discovery Service in order to make it more useful to patrons. As a result, satisfaction with the system is improving, although we still tend to direct people to the catalog or specific databases first. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

It is possible that we might change our discovery INTERFACE for the [...] libraries as a result of our RFP, or integrate discovery into the OPAC in a way that we currently do not. But because we provide discovery services to libraries outside the USG, but only manage the ILS for the USG, we have no plans to move away from EDS for overall discovery or use as the central index. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are hoping to acquire a discovery service when we migrate to a new ILS (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

As a Parliamentary (ie. Research) library, our clients are all in-house, so we don't have undergraduate or graduate students. I've used the 'Faculty Members' category to represent all of our users. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Worldcat Discovery is awful for article searching using the basic keywords that most undergraduate students use. Just terrible. First results for articles are usually book reviews, anonymous letters, or duplication of the same article through multiple metadata vendor sources. Most searches without a filter result in almost all ebooks. It's great at finding known physical titles, and placing holds. But the filters on the left are not very customizable. The option for "peer review" is not prominent and falls under a filter labeled "content type". It's not clear to undergraduates. There is no way to filter out book reviews or filter for reference entries. It performs so embarrassingly bad, we have placed the link for Ebsco and Proquest databases prominently below the search box urging students to use them for article searches. I don't even try to demonstrate it in student instruction because I never know when a live search is going to just bomb (they almost always do when I'm asking for student's keywords). We've had numerous outages this semester, too, on the discovery side. The link resolver sputters out too often into vague, basic searches into the database. Much of that is a function of the metadata quality from other vendors, so I can't bash them too much. Hope that NISO Open Discovery Initiative forces vendors into a better compliance with metadata consistency. But I also hope OCLC finds a way to clean this up and make it more functional for basic undergraduate searching--which is the prime function of a discovery students. Graduate students and faculty will use subject databases. But beginners flock to discovery because it is supposed to be 'easy'. It is supposed to fulfill the basic needs of most assignments. Right now, it just confuses them more. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

My concerns related to objectivity aren't about the order of results listed in Summon, but about ease of inclusion of non-ExLibris content. Example: Our Proquest ebooks are automatically updated within our holdings without staff intervention. EBSCO, JSTOR, and other ebooks have to be manually added. Because of this, we end up buying more ProQuest ebooks, not because the platform is better, but due to faster inclusion in Summon. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Due to its complexity and out limited resources (librarians), we still haven't fully implement PrimoVE as a true discovery service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The discovery service is ok. There are a lot of places where the library should have more control over the configuration of the service. Primo is clearly superior to the Innovative Interfaces catalog offering, so we've been pleased with that since we migrated to it. The disconnect between Proquest and Ebsco is detrimental for all users of systems from both companies. Both sides seem to believe that they can have a competitive advantage over the other by not sharing data. Neither company has a monopoly on the scholarly record, so we need services from both. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

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 an ageing AngularJS 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: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

I'd love to have considered the NISO ODI, but we didn't really have much option when selecting our discovery project. Alma was essentially our only real choice, and of course Primo came with that. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We may yet consider using the NISO OD initiative - we're not at that stage of proceedings currently. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We haven't got there yet, mainly due to budgetary matters (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

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)

It is common for the company to advise that defects will not be corrected. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

What is the NISO Open Discovery Initiative? (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

SirsiDynix Cloudsource does an excellent job of blending OA resources with library subscription databases. We can limit to that or expand searching to include everything in CrossRef.org (of course, most of that would be ILLs). As the company discovers more OA resources, they are added to their index and aggregated daily so the OA resources continues to grow. Cloudsource also includes OER resources as well. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

EBSCO has been very good, even though teams within the library have changed and not much time is allocated to looking after it, it does help students, academics and library users discover what they need. Obviously, at times the links don't always link to where they should, full-text finder is clunky, but overall not that good but not that bad. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have signed the NSIO Open Discovery Initiative and have incorporated into our selection process. We are hopeful that it makes a difference. The lack of rich EBSCO metadata from Proquest / ExLibris projects needs to be solved beyond the API solution they recommend. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The continued lack of cooperation on discovery indexing between Clarivate and EBSCO is truly disappointing. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Ex Libris' CDI makes Primo in many ways a crapshoot for users. Primo's effectiveness can be designed either for undergraduates OR for graduates and faculty - as with most discovery services. However, CDI is so complicated, even if catalogers have managed resources in Alma (or whatever ILS/LPS feeding Primo) expertly, that users are easily frustrated by Primo duplicate, merged, or otherwise mis-leading OA results. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Finna is national solution used by a large majority of Finnish libraries, based on VuFind but with numerous add-ons, and tailoring. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are very pleased with Primo and the options for customizing. Managing e-Resources and collections within the platform is a learning curve, but things generally work as they should and changes are seen immediately (this was lack in our last discovery platform). I am embarrassed to say that I don't know much about the NISO Open Discovery Initiative and it was not part of our decision-making when evaluating platforms. Our needs were for a next generation ILS and discovery platform that integrated well with ERM and provided enough functionality to be supported by our small staff. Open source options were not an option for us due to our limited capacity for supporting platforms that do not provide "out of the box" functionality. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The main issue for us is the poor user experience for patron functionality in Classic EDS. We hope that patron functionality for FOLIO will be better implemented in the new EDS UI. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

While it is commendable to have so many international journals, as a community college that is primarily a teaching institution as opposed to a research institution, we would rather have more national journals made available in the packages offered. As it is, we have to subscribe to additional journals outside of the packages to meet the needs of our students and faculty. We have implemented the new LTI integration with D2L, but it hasn't been in use long enough for us to evaluate. We are hoping it increases visibility and usage. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Primo VE can be frustrating. It's remarkably difficult to customize if you don't have a developer on staff (though I don't think it should be). (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We haven't done any studies of effectiveness for our patron populations in recent years. Also, I was not present for the selection of Alma/Primo, so I do not know if the NISO Open Discovery Initiative played any role in the discussions. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Not yet implement however plan to Vufind open source discovery services like to be implement (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are currently in the position of having access to two discovery services: our active discovery layer is EBSCO Discovery Service, while we have been using Primo VE as our OPAC. Despite Primo's ability to serve as both a traditional OPAC and a discovery tool, we have not implemented those features and continue managing resources in two systems, partly due to EDS being tied in with statewide concerns (including K-12 and public library services). (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are part of a consortium that uses a shared ILS between all members. Our discovery services is integrated with the shared ILS and is also used by all members of the consortium. Any decisions to be made about migration to another discovery service would be a group decision, so it's difficult for our institution to answer the questions about switching discovery service or the NISO Open Discovery Initiative. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Mostly works well. There can be some linkage issues particularly with certain vendors, such as Gale and Films on Demand. However, this is likely due to the quality of vendor metadata rather than the Discovery platform itself. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

OCLC Discovery has steadily improved for us since adopting it in 2014. Instances of bad linking have decreased, and service is generally reliable. That said, there is much room for improvement. There is a lack of parity in displaying different formats, faceting could be more prominently placed, and it is generally not very intuitive for undergraduate students. Scrolling can be reduced, and there is a great need for improved de-duplication of vendor records and OCLC number grouping. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Although we have not yet released it to our patrons, we do plan to offer them the tighter integration between Summon and Sierra (Sierra via Summon) later this year. (Library type: Theology; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We need to look at the NISO Open Discovery Initiative better (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Primo's ease of use for students is the only reason we aren't going with an open source product like Koha. This may change depending on the college's budget situation. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

There's some kinks with the new EBSCO UI, but overall we're very pleased with EDS. It's a much better fit for our databases than Primo ever was. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

I don't understand NISO or what it is (even after skim reading the website) which is why I ascribe zero as my response. If I understood it, and power to choose to implement it or not then I could express an opinion. It does seem like the indices used for data discovery in EDS are decided for us, and I am notperticularly inspired to include local resources within this search other than via a feed supplied to it from koha catralogue which we do. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

In 2018 UVA Library made the decision to pivot from Blacklight to an in-house developed discovery system which went live in late 2020. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

The service is new to us, so it is difficult to gauge how effective it is for our students and our employees. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Very satisfied with BOSS. We migrate to IntrOX because of a consortial agreement. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

With our shrinking staff, we are finding it more difficult and complicated to work with our system. We no longer have dedicated systems staff that can oversee changes and troubleshoot issues. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We switched from Summon to EDS in July with disastrous consequences. We have some hope that there was an indexing issue and that issues will be solved but have already contacted Intota/Summon about returning to that product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Vendor support for and communication with Asia-Pacific customers is particularly poor. Pressure to "upgrade" to Primo VE is likely to push us to consider alternative products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We find that EDS is not at all intuitive or user-friendly to administrators dealing with the back end. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We were aware of the initiative but other considerations had a higher priority. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)

Never heard of NISO Open Discovery (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I had to look up the NISO Open Discovery Initiative. I like the idea, but migration from our current Discovery layer isn't feasible due to vendor exclusives. Though we aren't looking to migrate anyway. As for the objectivity question, EDS scores lower due to some quality issues in metadata publishers provide the platform -- for example owned JSTOR and subscribed FOD content is loaded by MARC record due to the low quality of the data feed provided to EBSCO by the vendor (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Coverage of EBSCO databases good, but not for ProQuest databases. Have to create custom collections for non-partner databases. It has be difficult to upload our print collection holdings as well. Interoperability could be better. Looking forward to the new UI as long as we can have our own LibChat widget. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

(What is NISO Open Discovery? Never heard of it.) Primo VE functionality was substantially improved recently with LibKey implementation. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Again just beginning conversations about the ILS and Discovery service. We currently have 2 discovery services because WorldCat does not meet our needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

With WorldCat Discovery, the records must have an OCLC number to be discoverable via the catalog. This means that many titles are not surfacing. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Have not noticed a bias for a publisher or aggregator Will show multiple results for same e-resource title if in Alma and CDI, unable to prevent this duplication without losing some functionality (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our migration to a new Discovery service is prompted by our institution merging with a university that is already using WorldCat Discovery. EDS has reached an unsustainable price point for our budget, and the most viable path forward is to merge our Discovery platform with the university's library even though we are not geographically near one another. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

The Discovery service is used by the students / staff directly themselves. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The NISO Open Discovery Initiative is not very well known in the German speaking community. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Never heard of NISO (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 0)

I marked sevens and eights but really, we have no idea how effective Primo is for any group, except that the subject specialists largely hate it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

As with Alma it is still very new to us, but our patrons have hardly noticed any difference. Administration is easier since we use Primo VE which is integrated with Alma. And above all it is so much quicker to make our e-resources available for our patrons. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are looking forward to the next iteration of EDS once it is able to fully connect with the patron empowerment features in FOLIO. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Have not rated NISO open discovery because we have not looked at it. I was kind of aware of it but it didn't cross my mind at the timeof procurement (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Summon has steadily improved over the past several years. We still find that it can be tricky to execute a known-item search successfully. Overall it is a good product, but we really need to work to stay on top of updates and monitor glitches. This is difficult with a small staff spread thin. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We VuFind as our public catalog and push a lot of material into it. We subscribe to EDS for article searching. We think of VuFind as our main discovery system. The questions here seem more oriented to article discovery, but it feels strange to put EDS as our main discovery system, so it's actually rather awkward to respond to this section. It may make sense so split the catalog from article discovery. For many of our peers those are not the same system. Or clarify that this is concerned specifically with article discovery. For most of these questions, we really don't have hard data to support our ratings, so these are impressions. For VuFind, the things that have been important have been things like can we represent the complex holdings that we have in our collection and varied request/delivery services, and it is now quite good at this. Also, because we knew early on that VuFind would have support for connecting to FOLIO, we were not interested is switching to another platform. Regarding NISO ODI, it did not exist when we selected EDS or VuFind. So that was N/A (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We didn't have a discovery system prior to acquiring Primo. We struggle to make the system work for our undergraduate students, and faculty have had mixed opinions about it. Some of that is getting used to the system, but some seems to be the search algorithms themselves. With only 2 full-time staff and limited technical knowledge, it's difficult to fine tune the system as we need it to be. As stated above, the software seems to assume there are multiple full-time staff with time to manage aspects of the software itself. It's a steep learning curve for a small institution. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The change to Central Discovery Index (CDI) and our implementation of Rapido (resource sharing product) in 2022 has made results a mess, many duplicates and broken links. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Ebsco Folio is working with members of the [...] Consortium on implementing their EDS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Searches often lack precision. When I run a title search, I expect more precise results. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have no graduate school or graduate students thus the 0 score. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

We are currently transitioning from EDS to WCD in view of reduced budgets and spiraling EBSCO costs + low exchange rates. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our ratings would be higher if they were only for e-resources. EDS is not good for print and does not have good metadata for items for which we have access to better metadata. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We plan on changing our discovery towards the end of 2023. I have not looked into NISO Open Discovery Initiative but will now. EDS is very poor with transliterated text and diacritics in searches. Symphony is actually much better at handling this issue. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

While we value and feel the that NISO Open Discovery Initiative is important, we have not seen a discovery product that is not biased towards a vendor's own metadata and resources. We work to minimize this bias to the best of our ability in the backend of the discovery layer. We are a small shop and need to rely on a vendor for hosting, but we do let vendor's know that we would prefer the metadata to be openly available between competitors and that we would prefer a system that is not biased towards a vendor in particular. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Having deployed EDS four times at three different institutions, and having served on OCLC's Discovery advisory board, I would say EDS is still the ideal solution for a small or middle sized library. I have worked with EDS to connect it to Voyager, WMS, and Koha, and with each experience, their support has been stellar. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

I don't think our Primo instance is as fully operational as it could be. Not everything we have access to shows up in searches. But our staff is too small to have someone devoted to working out the kinks and our consortium office is often too busy/overworked to give full attention to this, either. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

In the past competitors to Ex-Libris did not get equal service in the Primo discovery interface -- EBSCO discoverability was a particular issue. However this seems to have improved in recent years so we are giving bias a higher rating. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We here at [...] are currently in a transitional phase to be defined by the award of ILS vendor RFP in early 2023. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

The discovery interface has been very unstable for the last few months. We consider that search results are slow to appear. Functions considered as basic for an interface are not present (full Zotero integration, search alerts, etc). Several problems with accented characters (we are a French speaking university). The main interface is at version 2 but some pieces of the patron interface and the advanced search interface are still at version 1. One of the most irritating problems is that thousands of our digital monographs for which we pay are not searchable by title in the interface: we have to use the A-Z list. We feel that when we switched to Discovery in June 2020 we lost a lot of functionalities from our old search tool based on ExLibris' Primo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

This is our first time with a discovery service AND we are using it as our OPAC. Some patrons love it, others hate it, and the staff are much more focused on FOLIO. We are making some data choices in FOLIO so that the info displays coherently in EDS. I wish that EBSCO was a lot better about discovering ProQuest resources. I had to turn off some of the big OA sources because there was too much duplication. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

I haven't heard of the NISO Open Discovery Initiative. Will look into it due to this survey. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Truncation and wildcards in relation to search logic need to be further refined in Primo VE. Searches often produce unpredictable or incorrect results, and it is not clear why. It is difficult for our users to understand. It would be beneficial for the public user to be able to toggle FRBR grouping on or off depending on their research needs, not limiting this to an internal system configuration. The FRBR grouping often produces very misleading results about what the library actually holds. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We do not have graduate students. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

It would be nice if Proquest and ExLibris would be more collaborative towards each other. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Faculty seem to struggle more (old habits I think, and lack of interest in learning better habits) than students. No graduate students at our institution. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We use EBSCO (EDS) for discovery and Primo VE for our catalog. We will probably continue using EDS as a discovery layer regardless of which ILS our consortia decides on. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

It is comforting to know that the program will work from any computer due to its online abilities. One aspect of this product that I find the most rewarding is Destiny Discover. During the time of COVID-19 at its highest, our students were still able to peruse our library system electronically and see which books were/weren't available for check out. I was able to pull the books from our shelves per the students' requests in order to still provide this vital area of learning. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Unsure of exactly what year EDS was implemented but that occurred as early as 2017. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We will likely stay with EDS, but there are mapping issues that need to be worked out (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We anticipate our new discovery service will revolutionize our library services. We were hesitant about OCLC's system when we began investigating it about 3 years ago because it had the reputation of not being ready for prime time, so to speak. But the more we investigated it, the more we became convinced that it was indeed a well-developed system that would give much more expensive systems a run for their money. Now in the midst of the migration process we are still convinced that it is the best value for the price that we could get. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 0)

The discovery service is used by academic libraries at a 2-year academic college that does not provide graduate programs/degrees. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Does not play well with our primary electronic content provider, EBSCO. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Once again, no mention of how this system integrates with Rapido to provide value in Resource Sharing services. The UX with Rapido enabled has made requesting document delivery and ILL so much better. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Alma and Primo were selected as part of a consortium. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Questions specifically aimed at students are not applicable to federal libraries. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have been largely satisfied with SUMMON's performance and usability. The upkeep of records between SUMMON and ALMA or Folio may become unmanageable long-term, so we need to consider discovery services in the same suite as the product we finally choose. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have it through a consortial deal and use it as a library online catalog rather than as a discovery service. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

I can't really speak to graduate student use, since we don't serve any. But, use of our discovery service has plummeted in recent years, which seems to be based at least partially on the difficulty students face in figuring out to use it. I'm not sure any other system would be any better or if this is just a problem with the huge gap in library search systems and search tools that students are more familiar with. However, if we weren't tied to Primo by a consortium membership, I'd definitely be looking at other options. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

We recently added LibKey to our Discovery service. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

They need a better way to: 1) De-duplicate records (there are a lot of duplicates) 2) Update individual holdings en masse - you can download a file of the holdings and update all at once, which works great for the smaller databases. But it is a nightmare for big databases. They can have 30 files dividing it in individual chunks of the alphabet and you never know which one some of your titles will be in (did they alphabetize it with "The house" or "House"?) 3) There needs to be a way to find your holding to update with e-ISBNs. Currently, you have to know the print ISBN which is at the very least an extra step to find (and sometimes can be a pain to find if you don't own it and it is part of a big long set) Otherwise, it is a very nice product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Discovery services needs to improve eBook searching and access. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Do not have adequate information on the NISO Open Discovery Initiative (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Recently, the Ebsco Discovery Service interface changed. The new interface is not as easy to navigate as the old interface. Hopefully, with time the interface will improve. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our library has looked at various discovery services but we are not able to afford the cost. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Not having a Discovery service makes teaching about searching difficult. All our resources are in different siloes with different interfaces. We bring this up to our system a lot and hope one day to acquire one. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

Year implemented is a best guess. The last 2 question are actually n/a. I am too new to know the consortia history on this. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are still in the very early stages of exploring discovery products (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We have worked with EBSCO for discovery as part of Encore Duet for a number of years. In considering a move to FOLIO, we will likely go with EBSCO Discovery Service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are currently at the implementation phase, so the above responses are our hoped outcomes of the new service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our library is part of a consortium, and therefore not very hands on when discovery system is chosen. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

N/A (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The Discovery product recently became active in our 13-14 grade college and have not been officially accessed by students since it is the beginning of the semester. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

I am not qualified to give an opinion on NISO (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

The [...] , which [...] is a member of, has just concluded the procurement process for a new ILS/discovery system, and recently announced that Ex Libris Alma/Primo were the selected systems. We are now just beginning to ramp up into the implementation phase, which is planned to complete summer of 2024. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

Admittedly, we are not that familiar the NISO Open Discovery Initiative (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Some of the libraries in our consortia use EBSCO Discovery Service, some use ProQuest Summon, and about a third have no discovery service at all. A big factor for us in migrating to WMS is that it would give all of our libraries access to a discovery service. Some of our libraries will continue to use their existing discovery layer. Some are going to discontinue use of the labor and rely on WC Discovery. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

System was purchased consortially (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Staff have reported relevancy issues when searching by title--the title will appear lower down on the page than expected. (Library type: Museum; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Unfortunately we didn't know about NISO ODI prior to the decision for Primo. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are not aware of NISO Open Discovery Initiative but this survey prompted me to take a look at that. Thank you. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Regarding the "publisher objectivity relative to coverage" question, we don't have a good feeling, not sure why we would know there was a bias if there was one. Our electronic resources librarian states that "all the packages from all the publishers are just as overly difficult to get into the system, no bias." We like the customizability of Primo relative to other systems we have tried, one being Summon (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are in the very early stages of investigating discovery system options (in conjunction with ILS options). (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Valuable tool. Room for improvement in terms of (1) ease of use for beginner users (2) ease of collecting usage statistics, (3) finding the right balance between ease of google search and relative lack of bias discover search for patrons. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The main problem with Primo is that it brings too much results - if we want a complex search in our very first investigation, that's ok. It is very objective for searching journals and databases, but brings large results in general search. Because of that, people tend to use the good and old ALEPH's OPAC. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Although the [...] RFP is ILS-focused and is striving to be relatively neutral to discovery layer implementations, we do imagine any future local discovery considerations will be heavily influenced by the outcome of that RFP process. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are experiencing several issues with our discovery service, which are being compounded and making discovery/access in some instances very difficult. 1. The OCLC discovery service recently updated their search results/weighting mechanism. The new algorithm gives undue weighting to resources not owned by the library and is proving problematic. OCLC are working on a revised form of the algorithm due for implementation early 2023. 2. We are experiencing numerous issues with Ovid article linking. This is being caused by a number of factors. 1) The WMS KB openurl link scheme is terribly out of date and still utilises a http hostname. This is causing issues with Chrome (and other browsers) as EZP pushes it through so many transformative iterations that it causes security violations and won't resolve; 2) in general, OpenURL as a linking mechanism is proving increasingly problematic, especially with platforms like Ovid. OCLC WCD needs to more fully invest in integrations like LibKey to provide a better user experience. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We used to have EBSCO Discovery product and were very satisfied with its performance. We had to cut costs and did not continue to offer this service. OCLC Discovery was freely available. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

EDS has been very useful and easy to learn for our students and faculty. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Texas dropping EBSCO is having a major impact on what we offer. We've neither been terribly pleased or terribly upset with EBSCO's Discovery product. We are seriously considering switching to Aspen Discovery or some other Discovery product, or possibly No Discovery product. Feedback from our Faculty indicates that they generally point the students to what database they want them to be focusing on anyway. As opposed to pointing them to a general Discovery interface such as EBSCO Discovery. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

new Discovery is in development which is encouraging. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

It stinks that EBSCO doesn't play nice with Proquest and visa versa, because we have a mix of both vendors' database products, but only the EBSCO ones show up in our discovery layer. Because of this, Proquest resources don't get used as much, and we are unlikely to add new types of databases unique to Proquest. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

I am new in the library and unaware of academic discovery service. I am open to learning about it. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

our ILS, digital library, and our articles service EDS, are all available through our Blacklight discovery layer (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

Primo's simple search interface is attractive to users, but results are often difficult to sift through. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

The NISO Open Discovery Initiative it's ok, we will consider. New projects for electronic resourses from vendors are comming. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Joining the [...] Library Network in 2023 (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

---

Library Technology Guides is a service provided by Marshall Breeding, independent consultant, author, and speaker.