Summarized chat from the Cataloguing in Leap Forum (January 15, 2026)

Polaris
1

After the forum concluded, we saved the chat and wow… there was a lot there! :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

So to make things a little easier to read, we sent the chat through an AI and asked for a summary. We went through the summary and made a couple of corrections and we’re posting it here for anyone who’s interested.

Big thanks to Wes Osborn for handling the AI side of things!

Notes from Jan. 15, 2026 Leap Cataloging Forum

Leap vs Staff Client Development Direction

  • Innovative is prioritizing Leap for all new development
    • It is also the priority for any documentation
  • Polaris staff client now treated as legacy software
    • Ongoing security fixes and critical bug fixes only
    • No significant new features planned
  • Tech services and systems admin in Leap are still actively being built out; so make sure you check the release notes for the latest release
  • Specific version notes from participants:
    • Many cataloging enhancements landed in 7.8 and 8.0 (e.g., duplicate check, more authority work, multi-select improvements)
    • Authority Control wizard and some authority-editing capability available in Leap from 7.8 onward
    • Fiscal year rollover utility now exposed in Leap in 8.0
  • Over 40 bugs fixed in Polaris 8.0

Current Leap Cataloging & Acquisitions Limitations

Cataloging-specific

  • Record and field editing
    • Cannot bulk insert multiple item records on a bib (e.g., 15 copies still requires 15 separate item creates)
    • Removing multiple bib fields is slower: must delete fields one-by-one, cannot shift-click to highlight and delete multiple fields at once
    • Copy/paste of large sections of multiple MARC fields between records is less efficient than in the client
    • Direct manual edits to the 008 field in Leap can corrupt positional subfield alignment; safer to use the 008 editor box - Recommend that a ticket is opened on this - it sounds like a bug
    • Authority editing in Leap still feels limited compared to client
    • Z39.50 imports in Leap do not currently honor the “Delete MARC tags when saving Z39.50 records to local database” profile (bug POL-15211, reported since 7.3)
  • Record sets and bulk work
    • Working with large record sets is clunkier than in client (scroll-to-load behavior, selection tools)
      • Prior to 7.8, record sets required infinite scrolling; 7.8 added a “Load all” button, but performance and workflow are still concerns
    • Selecting subsets of records for bulk changes is awkward (all-or-one-click-at-a-time)
      • Multi-select with Shift/Ctrl exists from 7.8
    • Creating item record sets from bib record sets (and vice versa) is missing/limited compared to client shortcuts
      • This is possible in 7.8.
  • Comparison and multi-window work
    • Built-in compare tool only lets you view one “primary” record side-by-side with others via tabs (up to 20 records), not 3–4 full MARC views at once
    • Users want to be able to re-order tabs or move the kept record to the left more easily and better labeling of the compare tabs with more than just control number
    • Some staff open multiple Leap browser windows as a workaround but then lose the built-in field-copy arrows across compared records
  • Macros and keyboarding
    • No native macro support in Leap comparable to client macros
    • Suggested workarounds: browser extensions such as Magical or PhraseExpress for text expansion and multi-field inserts
    • Keyboard shortcuts exist but are less intuitive and more complex (e.g., opening Find tool via Ctrl+Shift+’ instead of F12)
      • Some of this is a limit by the browsers.

Acquisitions-specific

  • Identified pain points and gaps in Leap acquisitions tools (especially pre-8.0):
    • EDI processing of partial shipments
    • Ability to create bib templates – Available in 8.0
    • Creating and managing import profiles and full imports in Leap – Available in 7.8
    • Ability to un-cancel a POLI
    • Links in bibs/items back to POs and invoices – Available in 7.8
    • Rapid Receipt support – (status uncertain)
    • Multi-fund editor
    • Fiscal year rollover utility – Available in 8.0
    • Using invoices to both receive and create items
    • Printing workslips from POLI segment (currently must link up to the PO to print workslips)
    • Editing prices/quantities on EDI invoices and adding manual charges still requires the client in many cases

Other Known Functional Gaps & Bugs

  • Quick search / OmniSearch
    • Acts as a very broad, system-wide search (patrons, bibs, items, etc.), which is problematic in consortial environments where patrons are not shared
    • No fine-grained control over which patron set is searched; some consortia suggested they’ve done branch scoping - reach out to support for more details on if this is possible.
  • Find tool and search defaults
  • Undo and safety
    • Lack of an undo function in Leap MARC editor is a major pain point; accidental modifications require reloading the entire record
    • Cursor behavior when deleting fields can cause unintended deletions if care is not taken
  • Label printing and QZ Tray
    • Label printing (particularly spine labels) is more constrained:
      • With QZ Tray auto-print enabled, only one label prints at a time; multi-label print in one click is not supported
      • Multi-label printing via the PDF print dialog is possible only when not using QZ Tray
    • QZ Tray prompts can be reduced by deploying signed certificates (.pem) centrally; links shared to RightAnswers KB article and IUG forum how-to:
  • Integrated e-content
    • Bug reported in 7.8 where saving a bib with integrated e-content can duplicate 856 resource entities each time the record is saved; workaround is to delete the 856 before saving (resource entity retained on Resources tab).
  • Help and documentation
    • Some help topics are out-of-date or inaccurate (e.g., invoice Power Search help references symbols not present in UI)
    • Users are encouraged to use the “Send documentation feedback” link at bottom of Help pages to request corrections/clarifications
    • General perception that official Leap training materials lag current versions; many are seeking updated trainings for 7.8 and 8.0

User Experience Themes (from chat)

  • Performance and productivity
    • Strong consensus that Leap cataloging takes significantly longer than the client for many high-volume MARC editing tasks
    • Several catalogers who timed themselves reported roughly 2x slower cataloging in Leap, especially when label printing is included
    • Many technical services staff describe Leap as “clunky” for productivity work, even if it is functionally capable in most areas
    • For some, Leap is currently something to “experiment with on a slow day” rather than a full-time production environment for cat/acq
  • Staff change management
    • New libraries and new staff trained directly in Leap (e.g., Clinton Public, Schaumburg, DCPL, several consortia) are generally successful and stay in Leap
    • Libraries with long-term staff rooted in the client report more resistance and training/time costs to transition
    • Cooperatives/consortia note the difficulty of getting buy-in from hundreds of staff used to the client, even when Leap is mandated
  • Quick search vs Find tool
    • Many staff bypass Quick Search entirely and jump straight to the Find tool (with power searches and saved filters) to control results and scope

Success Stories and Workarounds

  • Leap-only or Leap-primary implementations
    • Clinton–McComb Public Library (CMPL):
      • ~90% of cataloging is copy cataloging
      • New cataloging staff trained entirely in Leap; most have never used the client
      • Only a few tasks (e.g., batch item creation, certain EDI invoice edits) still require the client
    • Newer sites (e.g., Schaumburg, Valley Library Consortium, DCPL, and others) report most staff using Leap exclusively, with limited client access reserved for systems/tech services or edge cases
  • CCS consortium training & support
    • CCS (Cooperative Computer Services) highlighted repeatedly as a model for training and documentation:
      • Robust online courses, including a ~2.5-hour cataloging in Leap course
      • Click-along training quizzes were praised as especially effective
      • Materials currently based on 7.7; CCS training DB is already on 8.0 and updates are in progress
      • Training link shared multiple times: Online Courses | Cooperative Computer Services
    • CCS staff invited others (including large consortia) to reach out directly for workflow advice, especially around acquisitions and item templates
  • Tools and configuration
    • Item templates and correct use of 970 $l (location) and $h (item template code) fields were emphasized for clean EDI ordering and multi-branch workflows:
    • Power Search and SQL searches:
      • Recommended for complex bib/item/invoice queries in Leap
      • Users can save and name power searches in Leap for pseudo-“extra defaults” beyond the one default per search type
    • Browser-based macros:
      • Magical and PhraseExpress mentioned as useful (albeit paid) tools for text expansion and data transfer into MARC fields

Implementation Recommendations (refined from discussion)

  • For libraries implementing or expanding Leap use:
    • Train new staff directly in Leap and avoid dual-training on the client where possible
    • Keep staff on the latest supported Polaris/Leap versions (7.8+ strongly preferred for cataloging; 8.0 for acquisitions utilities and tech services)
    • Define clearly which few tasks still require the client (e.g., batch item creation, certain EDI invoice edits, some acquisitions utilities) and limit staff who have client access to those needing those functions
  • Workflow and UI optimizations:
    • Customize per-user Find tool defaults and filters (branch scoping, search indexes, column layouts and widths) to reduce clicks
    • Invest time in building and sharing power searches (and SQL searches where permitted) for common cataloging, acquisitions, and clean-up tasks
    • Use item templates $h and branch-level ($l ell) 970 coding to avoid order collisions in large consortia and to streamline receiving
  • Feedback to Innovative:
    • Log enhancement ideas and detailed use cases in the Idea Exchange – ILS - Polaris: New (633 ideas) – Innovate with us
    • Vote & add comments describing specific cataloging/acquisitions workflows and performance constraints to help product management prioritize
    • Use the Help system’s documentation feedback link to flag incorrect examples (e.g., invoice power search syntax) and missing details
1 Like