Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Thursday, November 24, 2011
- First embedding of schema.org metadata to facilitate a structured access by search engines
- fixed Delicious importer
- fixed sphere dialogues
- fixed authorization issue via Typo3 plugin
- fixed layout problems on BibSonomy's mobile view
- many further small bug & layout fixes
- added new scraper for Google Books
- repaired scrapers (Amazon, PubMed, Cell, CiteseerX)
- adapted database indexes for faster response times
- added support for synchronization to REST-API
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
A short explanation on why BibSonomy was down this morning: Actually, BibSonomy was running fine but one of the routers which connects our university building with the internet was down. Unfortunately, we have no influence on the infrastructure which usually works very good. It took two hours before the router was working properly again. Sorry for this and lets keep our fingers crossed that the router will not go down again.
There are two ways to do this: The first way is directly via our web service. You start by clicking post publication in the menu and select the ISBN/DOI add dialog which looks like this:
Then you enter your ISBN or DOI and all the information is gathered for you and your are done by entering some keywords (tags) to describe the content. Try it e. g. with the following ISBN: 978-3898383325.
The other way is more common. Imagine, you were searching the web for something new and found a book you would like to remember. Unfortunately, the book you found was on one of the pages that we do not offer a scraper for. But on the page is an ISBN like on the publisher page of Robert's dissertation. Just highlight the ISBN and use your bookmarklet and all data will be collected. Before you press the button, your browser should look like this:
So, that's all for today and I hope this best practices helps you to save time and collect a lot of references for your work.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
As you probably know from your own experiences people tend to have very different approaches when it comes to rating something. Even if they agree by trend in liking or disliking a resource, they might have very different ideas of how to express such an opinion. This makes it particularly hard to objectively compare two ratings - a problem that is known as inter-rater reliability.
For illustration consider some fictional (extreme) examples of BibSonomy users, rating a publication with 4.5 out of 5 possible stars:
- jock: Jock assigns top scores to everything he doesn't particularly dislike. His rating of a publication with only 4.5 out of 5 indicates that there must be something seriously wrong with it.
- g.rumpy: For him "I like it" means 2 out of 5 stars. Full score is not even an option and a score of 4.5 probably means, that it's the best stuff ever written.
- mr.normal: Well, Mr. Normal is very normal and so is his rating distribution.
The statistics box can be found on the discussed-posts-page of any user, e. g. here for user sdo: http://www.bibsonomy.org/discussed/user/sdo.
Each box shows the rating distribution, the total number of ratings and the rating average by this user.
Another such box can be found on the general discussed posts page http://www.bibsonomy.org/discussed.
Here, the statistics cover all ratings to any of the discussed publications or bookmarks displayed by any user.
Enjoy the new possibility to learn what other users might think about resources of your interest.
A while ago we were asked on Twitter about a Twitter integration for BibSonomy (by the way follow @BibSonomyCrew on Twitter for the latest ...
Because we're still so proud of our mobile version of BibSonomy , this week's feature of the week is about how to ease the process o...
It is vacation time and hence our features of the week are more sporadic but this week we want to give you a glimpse on current developmen...
Two important aspects of working with literature are the process of sharing it among your colleagues and the exchange of ideas and thoughts ...