citeulike (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} citeulike) wrote,@ 2005-01-08 23:57:00 |
|
How much do you want to read this article?
My paper-based filing system (which has now been almost completely replaced by CiteULike) was an enormous pile of papers, all wrapped up in a folder with the words "to read" written on it in big letters. I also had some general procedure whereby the articles that I really wanted to read got inserted somewhere near the top, and the ones I wasn't really in a hurry to get through went somewhere towards the bottom.
I've added this functionality into CiteULike, so when you post a paper you'll get asked how urgently you want to read it. Your options are:
Afterwards, you'll be able to order your library in the way my paper file used to work - things which you ought to read first at the top of the list. Obviously, you can change the priority via the "view article" page when you're logged in too.
I decided against letting users rate papers in terms of quality, and just went with recording how high up the user's personal "to do" list the article is. There were a few reasons for this:
In my paper-based world, when I finished reading an article, took it out of the "to read" folder and put it into its permanent home in the filing cabinet, I'd never in a million years think of scribbling a mark out of ten on it. Firstly it would sometimes be incredibly presumptuous to do so, and secondly it doesn't really achieve anything. If I realize that the article is of no interest to me and that I'm never going to cite it or refer to it again, it just goes straight in the bin; otherwise I keep it. It's really just a simple yes/no choice for me.
However I did find myself instinctively prioritizing all the stuff in the "to read" folder, and so I think that's the obvious ranking to use on CiteULike. It also avoids any potentially embarrassing situations where the author of an article (especially if he happens to be my boss) gets offended that I've given his article a bad mark. I haven't. It's just that it's not strictly relevant to what I'm reading at the moment.
My paper-based filing system (which has now been almost completely replaced by CiteULike) was an enormous pile of papers, all wrapped up in a folder with the words "to read" written on it in big letters. I also had some general procedure whereby the articles that I really wanted to read got inserted somewhere near the top, and the ones I wasn't really in a hurry to get through went somewhere towards the bottom.
I've added this functionality into CiteULike, so when you post a paper you'll get asked how urgently you want to read it. Your options are:
- Top priority!
- I really want to read it
- I will read it
- I might read it
- I don't really want to read it
- I've already read it
Afterwards, you'll be able to order your library in the way my paper file used to work - things which you ought to read first at the top of the list. Obviously, you can change the priority via the "view article" page when you're logged in too.
I decided against letting users rate papers in terms of quality, and just went with recording how high up the user's personal "to do" list the article is. There were a few reasons for this:
In my paper-based world, when I finished reading an article, took it out of the "to read" folder and put it into its permanent home in the filing cabinet, I'd never in a million years think of scribbling a mark out of ten on it. Firstly it would sometimes be incredibly presumptuous to do so, and secondly it doesn't really achieve anything. If I realize that the article is of no interest to me and that I'm never going to cite it or refer to it again, it just goes straight in the bin; otherwise I keep it. It's really just a simple yes/no choice for me.
However I did find myself instinctively prioritizing all the stuff in the "to read" folder, and so I think that's the obvious ranking to use on CiteULike. It also avoids any potentially embarrassing situations where the author of an article (especially if he happens to be my boss) gets offended that I've given his article a bad mark. I haven't. It's just that it's not strictly relevant to what I'm reading at the moment.
