EPrints Technical Mailing List Archive
Message: #05902
< Previous (by date) | Next (by date) > | < Previous (in thread) | Next (in thread) > | Messages - Most Recent First | Threads - Most Recent First
Re: [EP-tech] Altmetrics and Connotea
- To: "eprints-tech@ecs.soton.ac.uk" <eprints-tech@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Subject: Re: [EP-tech] Altmetrics and Connotea
- From: Tomasz Neugebauer <Tomasz.Neugebauer@concordia.ca>
- Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:52:25 +0000
Hi John, Thank you! I agree that 540 is noise and should be removed. In terms of the default options, it may be difficult to reach consensus, leaving it there as a comment as you have done is good. I personally think that Wikipedia is a better default than Facebook walls. I do
think that a comment with instructions as to the best way to override the JS file would be very useful. Tomasz From: eprints-tech-bounces@ecs.soton.ac.uk [mailto:eprints-tech-bounces@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
On Behalf Of John Salter I did a diff on the two versions [1,2] – and aside from differences caused by them being different EPrints in the Bazaar, they’re the same. The base64 representation of
the files are identical. I think 540 is ‘noise’ and should be removed? I’ve made this commit: https://github.com/eprintsug/altmetric/commit/f60864720bbacbc7daf05b5dc45d088accc54087 which should resolve it, and also hint at other ‘cited by’ options. Does anyone have any opinions on the current default options? [
'tweeters',
'rdts',
'feeds',
'gplus',
'msm',
'fbwalls',
'videos' ] Current possible values are: posts (combined total of below?) delicious, fbwalls, feeds, forum, gplus, linkedin, msm, peer_review_sites, pinners, policies, qs, rdts, rh, tweeters, videos, weibo, wikipedia Is it worth including instructions in the js file about the best way to override it (copying it from ~/lib/static/_javascript_/auto/99_altmetric.js to ~/archives/ARCHIVEID/cfg/static/_javascript_/auto/99_altmetrics.js
and editing the copy)? I realise this will be included in the JS file sent over the wire – so may be seen as wasted bytes? Are there any other improvements that are needed for the Altmetrics plugin before a new release is made? Looks like it supports ISBNs now as well as DOIs… Cheers, John [1]
http://bazaar.eprints.org/cgi/export/eprint/340/EPM/bazaar-eprint-340.xml [2]
http://bazaar.eprints.org/cgi/export/eprint/450/EPM/bazaar-eprint-450.xml From:
eprints-tech-bounces@ecs.soton.ac.uk [mailto:eprints-tech-bounces@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
On Behalf Of John Salter Hmm, anyone know where this version has come from: http://bazaar.eprints.org/450/ The package is called ‘altmetrics-dev’ – which I think is why it doesn’t appear as a later version of the other altmetrics packages. Both 340 and 450 are labelled as v1.0.5 I’m not sure what the differences in this new one are? Once this new version is understood, I have a look at the PR and other changes to make a v1.0.6. Cheers, John From:
eprints-tech-bounces@ecs.soton.ac.uk [mailto:eprints-tech-bounces@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
On Behalf Of Tomasz Neugebauer I recently installed the Altmetrics bazaar plugin (http://bazaar.eprints.org/340/)
It works well, but it displayed “0 readers on Connotea” on every badge, as it does on most repositories. Connotea has been discontinued in 2013, and Altmetrics does not track this data anymore, so the references to Connotea should be removed in the plugin. I propose how to fix it here:
https://github.com/eprintsug/altmetric/issues/1 Tomasz ________________________________________________
Tomasz Neugebauer |
- References:
- [EP-tech] Altmetrics and Connotea
- From: Tomasz Neugebauer <Tomasz.Neugebauer@concordia.ca>
- Re: [EP-tech] Altmetrics and Connotea
- From: John Salter <J.Salter@leeds.ac.uk>
- Re: [EP-tech] Altmetrics and Connotea
- From: John Salter <J.Salter@leeds.ac.uk>
- [EP-tech] Altmetrics and Connotea
- Prev by Date: Re: [EP-tech] request copy error message
- Next by Date: [EP-tech] DataCite DOI plugins
- Previous by thread: Re: [EP-tech] Altmetrics and Connotea
- Next by thread: [EP-tech] DataCite DOI plugins
- Index(es):