Search highlighting breaks series display

Bug #1791662 reported by Anna Goben
80
This bug affects 15 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Evergreen
Confirmed
Medium
Unassigned

Bug Description

Since we've gone to 3.1 we've received a lot of complaints about series entries not displaying correctly in the catalog. After a bit of research, we are fairly certain it ties into the highlighting feature causing some of the fields to be hidden. We'd rather see the full series entries so that our catalogers aren't panicking about their work being lost.

Probably related to Bug #1770454. This only rears up if you complete a search and open the record. If the record is refreshed after loading it from search (very inefficient workaround which loses the search results), the full series entries do appear on the record.

Revision history for this message
Anna Goben (agoben) wrote :

I'll also note that for patrons in the OPAC, there is no way to get the series stuff to come back. Turning off highlighting does not reload the full record correctly and patrons are not going to know how to strip the search info from the URL and be able to see the numeration (which is SUPER important for our series readers). Only staff can see the full series entries on the refresh.

Galen Charlton (gmc)
Changed in evergreen:
status: New → Confirmed
importance: Undecided → Medium
Revision history for this message
Galen Charlton (gmc) wrote :

I've looked into this and confirmed the behavior. When a record is displayed after a search, the series text is taken from the display field based on the series|seriestitle metabib field, which (to oversimplify) grabs /just/ the title from the 800 field if the 490 has first indicator 1 (and from the 490 if the first indicator is 0).

When the record is displayed by constructing a URL that uses the record ID directly, the series statements are instead parsed from the MARC record using logic in the parts/record/series.tt2 OPAC template; these draw from more fields and include volume/issue number as well.

Getting the series display field to be more comprehensive will take some thought, but one workaround I can suggest is to comment out (in parts/record/series.tt2) the conditional that begins with "IF attrs.hl_display_fields.series_title.size;" and /always/ parse the series statements from the MARC record. Note that there is a tradeoff: words in the series statement will cease to be highlighted.

Revision history for this message
Kathy Lussier (klussier) wrote :

This is disappointing. We need a way to display the same fields that previously displayed in the catalog without disabling the highlighting, which is a feature that Evergreen libraries have been requesting for years. See also bug 1767416 and bug 1770453, which highlight other field displays that were broken in 3.1.

tags: added: displayfields
Revision history for this message
Meg Stroup (mstroup) wrote :

We are also experiencing this in 3.1. It affects both users and catalogers-- the latter are frustrated that they take the time to code the relevant MARC fields correctly, but their work doesn't "show" (in the sense that it doesn't work as expected at present).

Revision history for this message
Josh Stompro (u-launchpad-stompro-org) wrote :

Related bug 1750025, may be a duplicate.
Josh

Revision history for this message
Jonathan Moore (jonathanmoore) wrote :

This is disappointing. When our patrons are viewing one book out of a series, they need a quick way to see all other books in that series. Need this fixed.

Revision history for this message
Nicole Heyer (nicoleh) wrote :

I agree with Jonathan. As a patron searching for a title and not aware of the series name I'd think the series had no other titles attached to it. Very misleading. Please fix quickly.

Revision history for this message
Steve Callender (stevecallender) wrote :

Just adding some heat to this.

I can see the series information with the numeration when going directly to an item but not when there is any kind of search term in the URL. If there is any search term the numeration is removed.

Revision history for this message
Vince Giordano (vincegiordano) wrote :

It's been almost 4 years. Any hope of this being fixed?

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Duplicates of this bug

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.