Question: What information should the G+NNDB have?
That's the Google+ Notable Names Database at #PlexodusWiki:
https://social.antefriguserat.de/index.php/G%2B_Notable_Names_Database
Currently it's structured as:
, . [ blog] [ microblog] [ social] [ feed]
The idea is to keep listings reasonably short, to provide a basic format for most online formats, but not capture personal information. So: no emails.
The format is a pain to enter. I'm actually lapsing to a data-driven generator (which works well). That's giving me the opportunity to re-think the format though.
Having looked at a few hundred entries:
1. There's no option for audio or video sites. There are a few podcast and video creators out there.
2. Some people are listing multiple sites that are being classified under a single cateogory -- often multiple blogs, or multiple microblogging or social sites.
3. LinkedIn is a fairly frequently-listed site that doesn't fit particularly neatly into categories.
4. It would be useful to be able to create OPML files from this. That's a format which RSS readers can take in.
5. Some way of making extracting information from G+ SignalFlare posts and/or pinned posts / profile About pages would be useful.
6. People are not tagging those posts.
A format that's sufficient, reasonably easy to edit (and no, the present format is not), ideally, can be automated on the Wiki (I'm looking into this), and is long-term sustainable, would be useful.
Somewhat structured formats seems more useful than less, though the balance is hard to draw. An open-ended list of sites (much as is offered in G+ About page Links sections) could be used. I'm leaning away from that.
Thoughts about information which should and should not be included is key.
https://social.antefriguserat.de/index.php/G%2B_Notable_Names_Database
That's the Google+ Notable Names Database at #PlexodusWiki:
https://social.antefriguserat.de/index.php/G%2B_Notable_Names_Database
Currently it's structured as:
The idea is to keep listings reasonably short, to provide a basic format for most online formats, but not capture personal information. So: no emails.
The format is a pain to enter. I'm actually lapsing to a data-driven generator (which works well). That's giving me the opportunity to re-think the format though.
Having looked at a few hundred entries:
1. There's no option for audio or video sites. There are a few podcast and video creators out there.
2. Some people are listing multiple sites that are being classified under a single cateogory -- often multiple blogs, or multiple microblogging or social sites.
3. LinkedIn is a fairly frequently-listed site that doesn't fit particularly neatly into categories.
4. It would be useful to be able to create OPML files from this. That's a format which RSS readers can take in.
5. Some way of making extracting information from G+ SignalFlare posts and/or pinned posts / profile About pages would be useful.
6. People are not tagging those posts.
A format that's sufficient, reasonably easy to edit (and no, the present format is not), ideally, can be automated on the Wiki (I'm looking into this), and is long-term sustainable, would be useful.
Somewhat structured formats seems more useful than less, though the balance is hard to draw. An open-ended list of sites (much as is offered in G+ About page Links sections) could be used. I'm leaning away from that.
Thoughts about information which should and should not be included is key.
https://social.antefriguserat.de/index.php/G%2B_Notable_Names_Database
Name
ReplyDeleteDescription
Personal website (blog) URL,
Personal website Feed URL
Facebook URL
Diaspora URL
Twitter URL
Mastodon URL
Other Name:URL
Linkedin is useful, if you use Linkedin. Otherwise not much. Like it or not, Facebook and Twitter are the other stack scale platforms. Notable names are just about guaranteed to have a presence there. The two big FOSS clouds of Diaspora and Mastodon are important.
Notable Names especially, should be encouraged to post their other locations on their personal website. Then you should be able to follow the links even if none of the other information has been gathered.
This is all personal information. Nothing wrong with that if the person has chosen to make it public.
ReplyDeleteSakari Maaranen Generally: this is drawn from pinned posts or about pages. In some cases, well-known figures with public blogs. I'm asking where uncertain.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking of switching to a named-field format, though the existing format will stand for now. It's convertible.
ReplyDelete