kevin | 24 Sep 12:34 2007

New features

We have developed some new features for CiteULike. The first set of these was released over the weekend.
Thanks to all the people who have been emailing us with feature suggestions and requests. We read every
single one and try to reply to as many as we can; they all inform what goes into CiteULike. Here is a copy of the
release notes posted to the news section of the site:

Saturday 22 September, 11:52

This is a brief note outlining the new functionality which has been released today.
Users

Your own CiteULike content is now all accessible through a series of "tabs":

    * Profile
    * Library
    * Watchlist
    * Groups
    * Blog

An overview of the functions available under each tab is given below.
Profile

Each CiteULike user now has a profile page. You can use this to put some information about who you are and what
you do. We will be adding to the collaboration features of CiteULike in the future; you might want to fill
out your profile to let other people know a bit about you. Your profile page displays a news mini-feed which
gives you a potted history of your significant activity on the site.
Library

All of your library functions are available under the library tab. The JavaScript-based 'Search My
Library' function has been retired (those of you who have very large libraries will know that it wasn't
working very well), and has been replaced with a more normal search box. We believe this is a great
(Continue reading)

Chad Davis | 25 Sep 14:34 2007
Picon

The new interface

I have enjoyed using and following the progress of CIteULike for the past two years that I've been using it. The substantial new improvements to the interface are much appreciated. The move toward more group collaboration is especially welcome.

Missing 'priority' field in BibTeX export:
It seems that the upgrade has also removed a subtle feature, however. The "priority" field has been removed from the BIbTeX export, though I can still sort articles by priority in the web interface. I heavily rely on this field, as I also manage my references locally (with JabRef) and not having a priority field makes it impossible to sort my reading list or to even distinguish read from unread articles. Was this intentional?

User's containing an underscore not searchable:
There seems to be an issue searching the libraries of user's whose user name contains an underscore. I cannot find any articles in my library ( chad_davis ), though I can find articles that I have in common with another user, if I search for the same article from his library. I have also tested this on groups in which one member's name contains an underscore and cannot find any articles from his/her page. If this is indeed the bug, I imagine it would straight-forward to resolve it?

Sharing PDFs in a non-open group:
Articles that I post to the group do not show uploaded PDFs. Collaboration would be enhanced if other group members also had access to uploaded files, as I often make comments directly on the PDFs by marking them up with Acrobat Pro. Is there a way, within copyright law, to permit other group members (and only them) to view (and modify/re-upload) my uploaded PDFs? Does this only work for non-open groups? If so, is there a way to simply change an already-existing group from "open" to "private"?

Thank you,
-Chad



Richard Cameron | 25 Sep 16:38 2007

Re: The new interface


On 25 Sep 2007, at 13:34, Chad Davis wrote:

> Missing 'priority' field in BibTeX export:
> ...

> User's containing an underscore not searchable:
> ...

These two issues look like simple bugs which have crept into the  
release unintentionally. We'll take a look at them this afternoon and  
get them fixed as soon as possible.

> Sharing PDFs in a non-open group:
> Articles that I post to the group do not show uploaded PDFs.  
> Collaboration would be enhanced if other group members also had  
> access to uploaded files, as I often make comments directly on the  
> PDFs by marking them up with Acrobat Pro. Is there a way, within  
> copyright law, to permit other group members (and only them) to  
> view (and modify/re-upload) my uploaded PDFs? Does this only work  
> for non-open groups? If so, is there a way to simply change an  
> already-existing group from "open" to "private"?

I would absolutely *love* to do this. We're using CiteULike groups  
internally to share references and I personally find it hugely  
infuriating that we can't even share the PDFs on our own site.

The slight reticence is that all four of us in the office are in  
agreement that it would be nice to be able to spend as little time as  
possible locked up in gaol for copyright violations, and are treading  
somewhat cautiously.

While anyone who's worked in a university knows that PDFs are  
constantly emailed around department members, they are still  
copyrighted material and we do need to play by the rules.

Some interesting points to note are:

a) As a website operating and hosted in London, we are governed by  
the local legislation ("Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1998")  
rather than the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (although the  
jurisdiction of some of these US laws seems to be widening by the day).

b) While sites like YouTube exploit the fact that the DMCA requires  
the copyright holder to identify unlawful copies of the work on the  
Internet and issue a take-down notice (and thus they do rather well  
out of re-broadcasting things like episodes of "The Daily Show"),  
this is probably irrelevant for CiteULike. Firstly, as discussed,  
that particular piece of legislation does not apply. Secondly, what  
Google can achieve with armies of copyright lawyers is in a different  
league that what CiteULike can argue. Thirdly, this just isn't an  
approach we want to take: we're just not that revolutionary. We're  
interested in working with publishers to promote their work in a more  
meritocratic manner rather than exploiting obscure quirks in the law  
to fight them (any publishers reading this need not get twitchy!).

c) There are parallels to this in the music industry. Sites like  
<http://anywhere.fm>, <http://last.fm>, and <http://pandora.com>  
cater for pretty much the problem of sharing music within groups of  
people. Presumably this works because they are classed as radio  
stations, but I'm not sure how this is applicable to CiteULike and  
the problem of PDF sharing.

If anyone has any expertise in this area then I'd be grateful for any  
advice you might be able to give (either on the list or privately via  
email). In particular, if any publishers have any views on what the  
likely concerns from the industry would be then I'd be interested to  
hear them.

There is, perhaps, scope for trying to do something which would suit  
all parties. If we accept that lots of university email is of the  
form "Have you seen this? [pdf attached]", and the corollary that  
university research groups currently pool resources using other  
technologies too (intranets, etc), then it might be interesting to  
see if there's an argument enabling such a facility in CiteULike.

What might work in the publishers' favour is that if they are  
interested in knowing how many people are reading their content  
(which they blatantly are - it is a factor in determining the price  
and profitability of the publication). If there's some mechanism  
(which would be compatible with a sensible user privacy policy)  
whereby publishers could start to know more accurately how many  
people are reading their content (we could give them aggregate  
statistics) then this might actually help them understand the people  
who're currently emailing PDFs to each other a bit better.

The benefit to the end user is fairly obvious. The pain of having to  
to negotiate paywalls while trying to work at home, together with the  
incessant fiddling with your computer's network settings to persuade  
the server that it's part of the university network could be  
eliminated. Interesting new features like "search the full text off  
all the articles your group has read" could be introduced. It just  
makes for a more productive and hassle-free research environment.  
That's what CiteULike is all about and, in an ideal world, is the  
thing we should be doing.

In the meantime, I can think of far better ways of spending the  
forthcoming autumn days than going to court to defend myself for  
intellectual property theft, so we'll hang fire for now. It's  
definitely worth starting the debate though, so please do let me know  
if you have any thoughts on this.

Richard.
Craig Talbert | 25 Sep 19:10 2007
Picon

Site down?

Having trouble reaching citeulike.org.  Is there an ETA for when it
will be back up?

- Craig
Craig Talbert | 25 Sep 19:31 2007
Picon

Re: Site down?

Nevermind, working now. :)

On 9/25/07, Craig Talbert <craig.talbert@...> wrote:
> Having trouble reaching citeulike.org.  Is there an ETA for when it
> will be back up?
>
> - Craig
>
Richard Cameron | 25 Sep 19:31 2007

Re: Site down?


On 25 Sep 2007, at 18:10, Craig Talbert wrote:

> Having trouble reaching citeulike.org.  Is there an ETA for when it
> will be back up?

That's odd. I can see it fine from here. If there's still a problem  
from where you are then please email me privately and I'll  
investigate further.

Richard.
Andrei Sobolevskii | 26 Sep 12:03 2007
Picon

Re: The new interface

Hello all,

On Sep 25, 2007, at 4:34 PM, Chad Davis wrote:

> Missing 'priority' field in BibTeX export:
> It seems that the upgrade has also removed a subtle feature,  
> however. The
> "priority" field has been removed from the BIbTeX export, though I  
> can still
> sort articles by priority in the web interface.

"Keywords" field, that used to contain tags, seems to have  
disappeared either.  This is certainly a trivial bug that will  
undoubtely be addressed very soon, but while we are on it, would it  
make sense to export keywords in BibTeX records as comma-separated  
lists rather than space-separated, as they used to be?  Software like  
BibDesk handles a space-separated list wrongly as a single word  
containing spaces.

There is another bug in RSS feeds for variuos groups and users: they  
give URLs in the form

http://www.citeulike.org/username/group:1476/article/1679199 [group]
or http://www.citeulike.org/username/camster/article/1692003 [user]

which do not exist on the CUL server.  The correct URLs in the above  
examples should be

http://www.citeulike.org/group/1476/article/1679199 [group]
or http://www.citeulike.org/user/camster/article/1692003 [user]

This one also seems rather trivial to fix.

This said, many thanks for the great work of the CUL team!

Best wishes,
Andrei
Richard Cameron | 26 Sep 12:52 2007

Re: The new interface


On 26 Sep 2007, at 11:03, Andrei Sobolevskii wrote:

> "Keywords" field, that used to contain tags, seems to have  
> disappeared either.

Fixed. Sorry about that. I've now put the "priority" field back too  
which had also gone AWOL.

>   This is certainly a trivial bug that will undoubtely be addressed  
> very soon, but while we are on it, would it make sense to export  
> keywords in BibTeX records as comma-separated lists rather than  
> space-separated, as they used to be?  Software like BibDesk handles  
> a space-separated list wrongly as a single word containing spaces.

Done. All tags in the BibTeX record are now comma separated.

> There is another bug in RSS feeds for variuos groups and users:  
> they give URLs in the form
>
> http://www.citeulike.org/username/group:1476/article/1679199 [group]
> or http://www.citeulike.org/username/camster/article/1692003 [user]
>
> which do not exist on the CUL server.  The correct URLs in the  
> above examples should be

That's fixed too. It's embarrassing we didn't catch that one before  
we put it live.

The other outstanding problem about not being able to search your  
library if you have an underscore in your username is something which  
can be sorted out quite easily, but I want to find a quiet time to re- 
build the search index as it's quite an expensive operation.

Please keep the bug reports coming if you find anything not working.  
Preferably send them directly to <bugs@...> (we probably  
need a web-form or something for bug reports, but that email address  
will do for now).

Richard.
Duncan Hull | 28 Sep 17:01 2007
Picon
Picon

A citeable citeulike citation?

Hello Kevin

kevin@... wrote:
> We have developed some new features for CiteULike. 

The new citeulike features look good, thanks for improving citeulike again.

I'm writing a review article on digital libraries and wondering if there 
is a citeable reference on citeulike anywhere (other than the website)?

If not, are any planned in the near future? E.g. a bioinformatics 
"Application Note" or something similar?

Cheers

Duncan

--

-- 
Duncan Hull
http://www.citeulike.org/user/dullhunk

Gmane