Comments on: IAG review of BIG http://blog.eol.org/2008/05/01/iag-review-of-big/ A blog about the Encyclopedia of Life: An electronic page for each species of organism on Earth Fri, 29 Aug 2008 01:21:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Rod Page http://blog.eol.org/2008/05/01/iag-review-of-big/#comment-3486 Rod Page Tue, 13 May 2008 18:23:05 +0000 http://blog.eol.org/2008/05/01/iag-review-of-big/#comment-3486 Nathan, I couldn't agree more. Take GBIF, for example, which is a wonderful resource, but full of errors. It is possible to get things fixed (see my <a href="http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2008/05/fixing-gbif.html" rel="nofollow">Fixing GBIF</a> post), but it is not straightforward. It has to be made much, much easier. I particularly like your idea of a mechanism where existing users can recommend other others, notably those that haven't yet acquired a reputation via the site, but who have an existing reputation. In terms of making your data available, I suggesting contacting David Shorthouse at EOL. Nathan, I couldn’t agree more. Take GBIF, for example, which is a wonderful resource, but full of errors. It is possible to get things fixed (see my Fixing GBIF post), but it is not straightforward. It has to be made much, much easier. I particularly like your idea of a mechanism where existing users can recommend other others, notably those that haven’t yet acquired a reputation via the site, but who have an existing reputation.
In terms of making your data available, I suggesting contacting David Shorthouse at EOL.

]]> By: Nathan http://blog.eol.org/2008/05/01/iag-review-of-big/#comment-3485 Nathan Thu, 08 May 2008 17:52:17 +0000 http://blog.eol.org/2008/05/01/iag-review-of-big/#comment-3485 I think (hope?) my site (http://mushroomobserver.org) falls into category 2. I strongly agree with what you are saying about allowing user to annotate the data. This is crucial and in my opinion should be the number 1 priority. It is great to have scientifically vetted data, but it is abundantly clear that is not the same as error free. When someone seems data that they know is wrong and have no effective way to fix it, they walk away. The key is to make it clear where the data is coming from. Ultimately this comes down to a rating system for indivdual contributors. My own site allows for both annotation and voting. The votes are weighted based on user's contribution to the site. This is far from perfect, but I believe it is the direction systems like this have to go to really be successful. The next thing I want to add in this regard is a mechanism for users to recommend other users. This allows the community to both develop its own experts and acknowledge existing experts that join the community but have not had the time to develop their own reputation. The other key feature for category 2 (and category 3) developers is to provide clear interfaces that the developers of those sites can hook into to do the work for you. I would love to make the data I've been collecting available to EOL, but I have no way to do it. I think (hope?) my site (http://mushroomobserver.org) falls into category 2. I strongly agree with what you are saying about allowing user to annotate the data. This is crucial and in my opinion should be the number 1 priority. It is great to have scientifically vetted data, but it is abundantly clear that is not the same as error free. When someone seems data that they know is wrong and have no effective way to fix it, they walk away. The key is to make it clear where the data is coming from. Ultimately this comes down to a rating system for indivdual contributors. My own site allows for both annotation and voting. The votes are weighted based on user’s contribution to the site. This is far from perfect, but I believe it is the direction systems like this have to go to really be successful. The next thing I want to add in this regard is a mechanism for users to recommend other users. This allows the community to both develop its own experts and acknowledge existing experts that join the community but have not had the time to develop their own reputation.

The other key feature for category 2 (and category 3) developers is to provide clear interfaces that the developers of those sites can hook into to do the work for you. I would love to make the data I’ve been collecting available to EOL, but I have no way to do it.

]]> By: Edustus http://blog.eol.org/2008/05/01/iag-review-of-big/#comment-3426 Edustus Fri, 02 May 2008 10:49:08 +0000 http://blog.eol.org/2008/05/01/iag-review-of-big/#comment-3426 Go on!!! EOL will not have any competitor. This web will be The Reference for all the investigators and nature lovers. We will be patient! Go on!!! EOL will not have any competitor. This web will be The Reference for all the investigators and nature lovers.

We will be patient!

]]>