|2011-01-03 15:39:17||Redirecting links|
Nick Kocharhook has been emailing me examples of bad links littered throughout our rebuttals which of course then spread into the translations. It's quite a stale link epidemic and he suggested a way to resolve the issue - have a "links database" where we maintain all the links used throughout our rebuttals. Then when we change a link (because it moves or goes bad), we change the centralised links database and the change will propagate throughout the blog posts, rebuttals and translations.
Now while I was talking to Nick, I realised we already have a links database, displayed at http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php. So what I propose is the following system where we use redirect URLs like www.skepticalscience.com/link_Hansen_et_al_2008 and this automatically redirects to the appropriate URL somewhere on the NASA website. Then if NASA move their files around (which they have done once, the blighters), then we change the database once rather than having to go through all our various articles, looking for links.
So this is the procedure I propose for transitioning to this new system:
|2011-01-04 04:09:09||sounds good|
|Sounds like a good idea to me.|
That's great that some of the infrastructure is already there for this.
One thing I was wondering was if it would make sense to group the links in any way, and possibly to provide metadata about them. In the scheme I described to John originally, there would be, e.g. a /paper/Author_2008 link and then a /data/NOAA_dataset link. Then you could just go to /data/ to see a list of the links to data sources.
But perhaps that's not too important. It would be possible to tag the resource links in the current setup just fine, if we decided we wanted to do that.
I like your idea of crowdsourcing the conversion. That will be the hardest part anyway, and it doesn't have to happen all at once.
There should also be some mechanism for periodically checking the links we have to make sure none have broken on us. This is definitely made easier by having them all in a DB.
In conclusion: how can I help? :-)
|2011-01-06 13:00:28||Re grouping the links|
The links are currently grouped by skeptic argument. This is compulsory. Whenever someone submits a new link, they *have* to select at least one skeptic argument. So we're steadily adding more peer-reviewed papers to each skeptic argument. This has been a big resource for me and I hope others.
It would be possible to add metadata to the papers but it's not a big priority at this point. But I will say that I've been talking to Mila at zvon.org - that website that created a database of all the references in the IPCC AR4. We're discussing sharing data between each other so I may be able to get hold of some of his peer-reviewed meta-data and incorporate it into our links database. Will keep everyone posted on this development (don't hold your breath, as I said, it's not a high priority).
So I have two questions before I start coding this feature:
I think it might be preferable to have paper or data included in the url. Hopefully its not too much work. |