18918
Reporter: kbraak
Assignee: dnoesgaard
Type: Bug
Summary: Broken link to resource
Priority: Blocker
Resolution: Fixed
Status: Closed
Created: 2017-02-03 14:06:18.903
Updated: 2017-03-03 12:29:20.148
Resolved: 2017-03-02 15:59:31.944
Description: http://links.gbif.org/gbif_dwca_how_to_guide_v1 is part of http://www.gbif.org/resource/80636 citation, but it doesn't resolve.
Furthermore, this resource is severely out of date. Can a large disclaimer be put on this resource's page please, warning users it is out of date? Thanks.]]>
Author: dnoesgaard
Created: 2017-02-03 15:58:44.867
Updated: 2017-02-03 15:59:47.048
I've fixed the broken link. It basically links to the resource page which is odd, when you are already on the page. But the citation is obviously meant for publishing elsewhere.
What is the degree of discrepancy? Should we refer them to a different document, wiki, something?
Author: kbraak@gbif.org
Created: 2017-02-03 16:19:26.487
Updated: 2017-02-03 16:19:26.487
Thanks Daniel.
Unfortunately this resource suffers from link rot throughout, references the GBIF Spreadsheet Processor tool that no longer exists and doesn’t cover the newest Event core, just to name a few of its issues. Maybe [~smasinde] can recommend an alternative document? Otherwise no, just a simple disclaimer at the top will do fine, thanks.
Author: kbraak@gbif.org
Created: 2017-02-14 15:28:48.189
Updated: 2017-02-14 15:28:48.189
Hi [~dnoesgaard],
Just chatted with [~smasinde] and there is no alternative document that we would like to link to. Can you please put a BIG disclaimer at the top of the page: "Beware that this resource is out of date! It remains online for historical purposes only."
We welcome a discussion on how to decommission many similar out of date resource when you and [~kylecopas] are back from vacation.
Author: kbraak@gbif.org
Created: 2017-03-02 09:17:00.478
Updated: 2017-03-02 09:17:00.478
Hi [~dnoesgaard],
Coming back to this issue again. It's important we establish a workflow for decommissioning resources such as this one. I propose putting the disclaimer at the top of the page, plus a link to the resource that replaces it when possible. With this workflow in place, [~dschigel], [~smasinde] and I can supply you with a spreadsheet of resources that need decommissioning. Does that sound alright? Thanks.
Author: dnoesgaard
Created: 2017-03-02 09:41:50.824
Updated: 2017-03-02 09:41:50.824
Kyle,
First of all, apologies for taking so long to respond. I have added the disclaimer to the resource now.
I think we might also benefit from looking at web traffic statistics for some of these resources. If the the number of visits is very low, it makes sense to unpublish the resource altogether as a means of cleaning up. I can help with that, if you agree.
Author: kbraak@gbif.org
Created: 2017-03-02 15:59:31.97
Updated: 2017-03-02 15:59:31.97
Thanks Daniel,
I completely agree. Looking forward to making more progress with you and [~kylecopas] on documentation cleanup soon.
Author: kylecopas
Created: 2017-03-02 19:03:11.789
Updated: 2017-03-02 19:03:11.789
We would benefit from agreeing to the triage process, because we don't need to migrate antiquated resources.
@kbraak, were you and I discussing this last week? I'd prefer to flip this conversation on its head. When confronted with a resource we know to be woefully out of date, ask instead: are there reasons we need to keep this available? A little ruthless pruning is more than in order in such cases, imho.
Author: kbraak@gbif.org
Created: 2017-03-03 09:44:39.875
Updated: 2017-03-03 09:44:39.875
Thanks [~kylecopas],
I don't remember discussing this last week but I'm in favor of more ruthless pruning. What about you [~dnoesgaard]?
As part of the triage process, can we please agree to better ways to maintain these PDF documents in the future? Also, can we make it nicer for users of GBIF.org to view these documents?
Option A. Transfer the document to a wiki and maintain it there? A less formal release procedure for incorporating updates will certainly facilitate keeping the documents up to date. A concern highlighted by [~ahahn@gbif.org] is that the document still needs to be downloadable/printable. I checked, and GitHub wiki pages can still be saved as PDF for printing in a reasonably nice format (see attached file).
Option B. Keep the PDF format, but at least do a better job in GBIF.org to allow users to visualise their contents from their browser. [Fisghare uses PDF.js to enable this|https://twitter.com/figshare/status/836248705879592961], here is an example: https://t.co/QXHmlU1kcW Would this be possible to implement [~bko@gbif.org]?
Option C?
Thanks
Author: kylecopas
Created: 2017-03-03 10:29:32.242
Updated: 2017-03-03 10:30:19.952
Sorry, but where does the requirement that 'the document still needs to be downloadable/printable' come from? The encyclopaedic approach is part of what lands us here talking about such materials.
I apologize if I'm misunderstanding (still on CEST here in the EST), but if we're talking about an outdated document that does no current service to users —and is not widely used besides—why the concern about accessibility? We are not providing a history of data science archive, but a working service that needs to offer users clear guidance on how to use the same.
Author: kbraak@gbif.org
Comment: Thanks [~kylecopas]. As far as I am aware, this requirement is meant to cater to regions with poor Internet access, e.g. countries where an individual goes to an Internet cafe to download their emails, etc so that they can continue to work offline for the remainder of the day.
Created: 2017-03-03 11:37:38.513
Updated: 2017-03-03 11:37:49.465
Author: kylecopas
Created: 2017-03-03 12:11:11.1
Updated: 2017-03-03 12:11:11.1
Are we mixing issues? I thought this was about whether to maintain a link to a document we know to be out of date. The discussion seems to have shifted to something else—a preview display of any document. Is that right?
I wholeheartedly agree that we should handle PDFs a whole lot better. But, fwiw, unless there's some new urgency around implementing preview functionality, I would respectfully suggest that the fix might be best served in the post-Drupal content environment.
Author: kbraak@gbif.org
Created: 2017-03-03 12:29:20.148
Updated: 2017-03-03 12:29:20.148
Evolved into also maintaining its content too ;) The display of a document would help us with another excuse for retaining documents in PDF format, that's all.
Glad to hear you are enthusiastic about handling PDFs a whole lot better and have this on your radar. Looking forward to seeing this improved in the post-Drupal content environment.