I agree that links on their own are probably not very useful, at the
very least they need some brief description and a reason for their
inclusion. The idea of a continually updated resource seems to me to
be good, perhaps using WIKI technology, with only selected users
registered to edit. This could then be managed by fairly strict
understanding by those editing of the bounds of contribution
Cheers Geoff
2009/4/24 Terence Harrison <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hi Jon,
>
> I'm not convinced the list of links approach is where we should be heading.
> Instead, I think we should be developing a technology that allows for any
> evidence summary to be authoratively updated on the fly by registered
> 'information consultants' - ie, dynamic updates, based not only on the
> literature but incorporating day-to-day expert opinion. (To be bold, allow
> consumer comments too?) Be interested to hear what others have to say about
> this - including any specific technology/Web 2.0 solutions that could be
> applied.
>
> All the best.
>
> Terry Harrison
>
> 2009/4/21 Jon Brassey <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'm currently working on the next upgrade to the TRIP Database
>> (www.tripdatabase.com) and am exploring the idea of using volunteers to
>> enhance the search results on TRIP. I've blogged about it here
>> http://blog.tripdatabase.com/2009/04/call-for-voluteers.html. But I'll copy
>> the post below my signature.
>>
>> I'd appreciate peoples opinion.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> jon
>>
>> Jon Brassey
>> TRIP Database
>> www.tripdatabase.com
>>
>>
>>
>> One idea we've got for TRIP is to allow domain experts (clinician or
>> information specialist) to highlight important papers/organisations related
>> to a particular search term. These 5-10 links would appear on the results
>> page and sit aside from the main results.
>>
>>
>> So, an expert in hypertension (say) would volunteer and essentially create
>> a list of links that would enhance the TRIP main search results. As a crude
>> example they may link out to the following:
>>
>>
>> British Hypertension Society
>> American Heart Association
>> NICE guidance on hypertension
>> Escardio
>> Investigating hypertension in a young person (from the 6th April 2009) -
>> ie an important recent paper
>> An important recent news item
>> etc
>>
>> I would see the expert be given pretty much free-range over what they add
>> (subject to certain conditions).
>>
>> Two questions:
>>
>> Would these links be a useful addition to the main results?
>> Would people volunteer to help?
>>
>> For both questions I think yes! I have little doubt the human expert links
>> will be pertinent and useful.
>>
>> The bigger question is the desire of people to volunteer. I would like to
>> think that there would be relatively little work in creating the list (given
>> the volunteer would be an expert in that area), updating would be minimal.
>> The volunteer would help improve the search results on TRIP making the
>> million plus users per month gain better results.
>>
>> I suppose that's the real question - is improving the search results on
>> TRIP motivation enough for people to volunteer a few minutes a month?
>
--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments unless by prior
arrangement.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
|