The following table presents the 2024 results according to the type and size of the library.
| 2024 Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | ||||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| UndergradDiscovery | 436 | 6.99 | 162 | 7.01 | 132 | 7.02 | 88 | 6.93 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 8.00 | ||||
| GraduateDiscovery | 401 | 6.75 | 139 | 6.81 | 128 | 6.72 | 86 | 6.76 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 7.67 | ||||
| FacultyDiscovery | 439 | 6.71 | 163 | 6.91 | 134 | 6.67 | 88 | 6.51 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 7.00 | ||||
| DiscoveryCoverage | 444 | 7.08 | 166 | 7.08 | 134 | 7.04 | 88 | 7.25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 7.25 | ||||
| DiscoveryObjectivity | 433 | 6.73 | 162 | 6.63 | 130 | 6.81 | 87 | 6.91 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 7.25 | ||||
| ODIimportance | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | ||||
| 2024 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| Undergraduate | 436 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 10 | 28 | 73 | 154 | 114 | 46 | 7 | 6.99 | 7 | |
| Graduate | 401 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 11 | 8 | 31 | 72 | 143 | 86 | 40 | 7 | 6.75 | 7 |
| Faculty | 439 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 12 | 13 | 37 | 94 | 148 | 87 | 41 | 7 | 6.71 | 7 |
| Coverage | 444 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 12 | 23 | 67 | 139 | 145 | 47 | 8 | 7.08 | 7 | |
| Objectivity | 433 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 16 | 19 | 53 | 65 | 102 | 103 | 65 | 8 | 6.73 | 7 |
| ODI Importance | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Used ODI | 462 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Average Collection size: | 1177207 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 0 |
| Academic | 427 |
| School | 0 |
| Consortium | 6 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 0 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2023 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| Undergraduate | 779 | 12 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 19 | 62 | 125 | 260 | 224 | 65 | 7 | 6.88 | 7 |
| Graduate | 722 | 12 | 2 | 10 | 8 | 24 | 63 | 131 | 240 | 179 | 53 | 7 | 6.69 | 7 |
| Faculty | 798 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 14 | 30 | 81 | 158 | 257 | 185 | 56 | 7 | 6.66 | 7 |
| Coverage | 808 | 8 | 3 | 9 | 13 | 13 | 53 | 111 | 263 | 253 | 82 | 7 | 6.99 | 7 |
| Objectivity | 788 | 14 | 7 | 15 | 17 | 26 | 103 | 134 | 226 | 156 | 90 | 7 | 6.54 | 7 |
| ODI Importance | 624 | 81 | 11 | 32 | 31 | 51 | 134 | 73 | 97 | 66 | 48 | 5 | 5.00 | 5 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Used ODI | 995 | 96 | 9.65% |
| Average Collection size: | 1422279 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 118 |
| Academic | 617 |
| School | 9 |
| Consortium | 20 |
| Special | 17 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 0 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2022 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| Undergraduate | 866 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 14 | 32 | 49 | 136 | 309 | 231 | 83 | 7 | 6.93 | 7 |
| Graduate | 813 | 15 | 5 | 7 | 14 | 34 | 74 | 130 | 266 | 200 | 68 | 7 | 6.67 | 7 |
| Faculty | 878 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 17 | 49 | 83 | 158 | 280 | 199 | 75 | 7 | 6.67 | 7 |
| Coverage | 887 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 14 | 16 | 62 | 129 | 314 | 241 | 96 | 7 | 6.99 | 7 |
| Objectivity | 872 | 11 | 8 | 15 | 27 | 44 | 111 | 155 | 210 | 176 | 115 | 7 | 6.53 | 7 |
| ODI Importance | 722 | 67 | 22 | 26 | 23 | 49 | 152 | 93 | 127 | 95 | 68 | 5 | 5.43 | 6 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Used ODI | 1028 | 106 | 10.31% |
| Average Collection size: | 1382523 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 39 |
| Academic | 754 |
| School | 18 |
| Consortium | 22 |
| Special | 13 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 0 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2021 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| Undergraduate | 841 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 15 | 21 | 69 | 132 | 282 | 240 | 67 | 7 | 6.86 | 7 |
| Graduate | 768 | 17 | 3 | 5 | 15 | 23 | 84 | 132 | 257 | 175 | 57 | 7 | 6.61 | 7 |
| Faculty | 855 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 21 | 40 | 99 | 150 | 280 | 191 | 57 | 7 | 6.60 | 7 |
| Coverage | 869 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 14 | 21 | 78 | 141 | 295 | 223 | 78 | 7 | 6.83 | 7 |
| Objectivity | 840 | 10 | 10 | 14 | 30 | 34 | 126 | 132 | 230 | 164 | 90 | 7 | 6.45 | 7 |
| ODI Importance | 658 | 65 | 11 | 15 | 28 | 52 | 143 | 79 | 120 | 88 | 57 | 5 | 5.44 | 6 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Used ODI | 1066 | 97 | 9.10% |
| Average Collection size: | 1883473 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 93 |
| Academic | 612 |
| School | 28 |
| Consortium | 28 |
| Special | 20 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 0 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2020 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| Undergraduate | 853 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 21 | 53 | 122 | 291 | 257 | 86 | 7 | 7.02 | 7 |
| Graduate | 785 | 16 | 4 | 7 | 11 | 21 | 63 | 138 | 265 | 198 | 62 | 7 | 6.72 | 7 |
| Faculty | 864 | 4 | 4 | 11 | 15 | 35 | 92 | 145 | 283 | 207 | 67 | 7 | 6.70 | 7 |
| Coverage | 876 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 15 | 69 | 119 | 281 | 280 | 85 | 7 | 7.01 | 7 |
| Objectivity | 852 | 11 | 5 | 8 | 22 | 32 | 115 | 138 | 219 | 203 | 97 | 7 | 6.65 | 7 |
| ODI Importance | 649 | 62 | 6 | 17 | 26 | 48 | 125 | 86 | 102 | 99 | 78 | 5 | 5.64 | 6 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Used ODI | 1110 | 91 | 8.20% |
| Average Collection size: | 1282431 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 106 |
| Academic | 780 |
| School | 44 |
| Consortium | 28 |
| Special | 28 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 0 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
edited discovery content (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Summon, for the university, is our "pac" and more. Integration with electronic databases, digital commons, and other various harvesting protocols for numerous data sources, make it the key academic resource that our faculty, students, and graduate students use. Not sure that we'd be happy with a Primo migration, but that may also be in the future at some time. That's a big maybe. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Patrons struggle to understand whether we have the print or e-version of something. Some of this is due to choices we've made with choosing defaults, and some is the way the data is displayed. We are considering alternatives but OCLC's ownership of worldcat makes it very hard to justify a different discovery system. It's so streamlined for patrons to place holds and interlibrary loan requests, we know it will introduce hardship to move. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Patrons struggle to understand whether we have the print or e-version of something. Some of this is due to choices we've made with choosing defaults, and some is the way the data is displayed. We are considering alternatives but OCLC's ownership of worldcat makes it very hard to justify a different discovery system. It's so streamlined for patrons to place holds and interlibrary loan requests, we know it will introduce hardship to move. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Summon is a simple and straightforward service, and we have no serious complaints. The one small drawback to the Data Management portal is that the databases can take up to a minute to load, and it takes several seconds to navigate between results pages. One potential issue that libraries may have is that the front end only updates once a day. This service does not provide database database updates or settings changes to the end user in real-time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are currently not looking to replace Discovery at this time. However, I do not like that there are certain features that we can't turn off that confuse our users. One of them is VLE Books -- we do not subscribe and do not intend to use them for PDA. There was a recent User Interface upgrade that caused a few problems as we were early adopters - and I believe we lost quite a bit of customization in the process due to staffing issues. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
need a better filtering of results system to locate some resources, Users are still getting overwhelmed with results that they cannot access. The bib records of community zone records do not have good subject headings and cover the vey basic information. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
Ex Libris seems willing to work with all publishers, it's not always possible, and it's hard to tell where the problem lies. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The ELUNA Primo listserv and other customer documentation has been invaluable for identifying tips and tricks, and small bug fixes, along with early warning of known issues with new releases for Primo. The Ex Libris Primo VE documentation has somewhat lagged behind communications from the user community. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We cannot answer the Graduate Student question and there was no N/A option as we are a two-year school with only undergraduate students. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I am not positive about the date that we switched from Primo to PrimoVE. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
EBSCO Discovey Service se integrará con FOLIO para la indexación del catálogo de la biblioteca. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We do not have any undergraduate students and therefore cannot rate the service's effectiveness for them. Some of our more specific collections are not indexed well (or at all) at the article level in this discovery layer, which can frustrate some of our patrons who expect to be able to find all of our resources in the discovery layer. As I understand it, the vendor is planning to roll out a feature in the next few years where the ProQuest Research Assistant (which uses gen-AI to summarize documents) will be embedded in the discovery layer, but it will only appear on records for ProQuest resources, which could potentially bias users in favor of those resources. The vendor is planning to roll out a new discovery layer starting in 2025; it will be called the NDE and is presented as the next step up from Primo VE. This new interface will require us to review all of our current customizations in Primo VE before migrating over (as it will use Angular instead of Angular JS), so we likely will not migrate right away. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
CloudSource+ has been great but it has its challenges as well. Once we get the kinks worked out I am sure it will be much better. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are experiencing some challenges with the relevancy algorithms and which record ends up being selected as the representative record. To our patrons it may look like we don't have an item because we don't have the most current printing of the title, when we actually have a copy that was printed 2 years ago. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
New Primo interface will be implemented in July 2025. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)
Our consortium is currently in a bidding process for a new library systems contract. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Does not show all the other publishers/database providers. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Current Collection discovery area does not meet our needs. Need to look elsewhere for this solution. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We use EDS (locally branded as MultiSearch). VuFind is discovery interface for library catalog only, although it has the potential to do more. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
EDS allows for the discovery of subscribed collections on a large scale, as well as the inclusion of a wide variety of publishers outside the content offered by EBSCO. EDS also has the possibility of including personalized cards when making specific searches to include content that fits the searches and needs of the institutional community, as well as a map of concepts that brings them closer to the search logic on digital platforms. The large amount of electronic content causes the need to permanently update the collections, either by removing titles from aggregators or resources that are not found in the provider's indexes. In some cases, the criteria of relevance and highlighting of matching words are not entirely satisfactory, especially with very specialized searches. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have no grad students so that is not applicable. We do have issues with EBSCO resources and Summon at times, especially EBSCO ebook information. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
It isn't helpful when staff have to contact Ex Libris to hide certain articles and ebooks because they are no longer available. It doesn't look good on the Library when staff and students come up on material that isn't available. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
Same as above. We will move with our consortium and hope the system doesn't change so we can make progress and continue to optimize the search experience for our users. The bias question is tricky given the forms of bias that exist and subtleties involved with each. We make efforts to reduce the 'bias in' through Alma and its metadata so that we can do our part to reduce 'bias out' discovery-side. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Overall suits our needs. However the latest update to UI could cause some issues within the coming year. We are currently evaluating some of the new changes with trepidation but no firm issues as of right now. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our library is currently migrating to Primo. We are currently using EBSCO's Classic EDS and not the new interface. We have no complaints about EDS and are only migrating due to a consortium decision to switch. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are highly dissatisfied with EBSCO as a discovery system vendor. There are, however, very limited alternative options for a large research library; we feel stuck. We investigated our options this year, and determined that for the time being we will be staying on EDS, even though VuFind would have served our patrons better. We do not have the staffing to move to an open source discovery system, especially as it would not result in cost savings -- we'd still need to subscribe to EDS for the eresource index & management. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Customizing Primo can be challenging and time-consuming. While Primo offers some built-in customization options in PRIMO Studio, these options are often constrained to surface-level changes, such as modifying logos or other branding. Making changes to the homepage should be easier and more intuitive like modifying a webpage using a CMS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
|
|
|