h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A31267884 - The Face Mite

The Microscopix link is broken. Please replace with:
http://www.psmicrographs.co.uk/follicle-mite--demodex-folliculorum/science-image/80016324


The BBC Health link is similarly defunct. Either remove or replace with:
http://www.nhs.uk


Icy

done

GB

I can see that there are 340 Edited Entries with links to www.bbc.co.uk/health which has been discontinued. That'll involve a fair amount of curating.

Most are just the top level site link, I would imagine. It's an interesting editorial policy decision I think you need to make as to the value of those generic site links and what you replace them with now the BBC has gone.

If you retain them, you might want to ally yourselves to specific other reference sites out there, maybe with some sort of reciprocal linking agreement.

I've been removing broken links in my own articles, replacing with suitable alternatives where available, but not reporting them on CF (there haven't been many) as technically I'm not altering the text of the entry. Gnomon do you think we should report every link change at CF? I've already unsub from a lot of EF threads, which I don't mind as Icy is doing sterling work, but if everyone who can take care of their own entries does this then convo lists are going to heave.

GB

I considered aggregating these broken link reports into a single EF posting, but I felt it might get confusing if the curator needed to feed back on a number of them.

I still have 30+ entries to check, so let me know if you want feedback submitted as separate postings or all together.

Icy

Another thought: For these generic/thematic links like BBC Health, can we link via some sort of editable URL redirection service, if it exists? Can you edit a tinyurl.com entry, for example? It would make those mass edits a thing of the past.

Annoying though it might be, we *should* leave a breadcrumb trail in CF for each individual Entry.

This does however highlight the need for sub-eds to be very wary about links to external web pages. Although of course we wouldn't be able to second-guess that the BBC would one day move or dump all its health section pages, links to external pages should be reviewed in the context of 'is this link really necessary to the Entry' and if it is then the next question should be 'why isn't the material covered in the Entry itself?' Totally pointless generic links such as <> should be removed. Having said that, the more detailed the drill-down in the link URL, the more likely it is that it could be moved in the future.

Icy, on your point about reporting in EF, there is no problem (indeed some benefit) in listing a series of A-numbers and Entry titles under a single general posting of say' Broken links'.

Re the BBC link: We have recently had a discussion about this between the GEs and the Comms. We came to the decision to replace the BBC health advice with this link


http://www.nhs.uk/Pages/HomePage.aspx

However, when we were discussing this, the BBC service was still active. Should I now contact all the curators about this?

I am afraid that I don't have the tech know how to replace all the links automatically, but would be grateful if this was possible. Maybe we would need to wait until Pastey gets back from his US tour?

Advice and opinions gratefully received

Re Curating - GB is correct in saying that it is unnecessary to document minor corrections, such as missing spaces/typos and replacing broken links in her own Entries. Personally I trust the Curators to use their judgement as to whether there is any benefit in documenting such minor updates.

However, I am happy to read everything that happens in Editorial Feedback and on the Curating home page, however minor. I am just terribly grateful for the volunteer effort that goes into keeping the Guide up to date as best we can. Huge kudos all round to everyone.

Any factual amendment, or substantial correction *should always be documented*, and I think it is easier for each entry to have their own conversation thread.

I'd previously requested a mechanism for the GEs to be able to access data in connection with curating and updating of Entries, but for the present this is the only thing we have.

Lanzababy

.... and what h5ringer said about grouping Entries together, if that is more convenient. It's a judgement call at the end of the day, whatever is easiest for the person who is reporting anything for a Curator to fix is fine with me.

I don't mind reading them either, Icy carry on as you are, it's easy for the Curators to unsub when they know another Curator has done the asked-for job. What I was querying was about the Curators' own articles, which is one of my 13-in-13 tasks, to go through and check the external links in my old articles. I will continue to record minor updates & changes, as always, at CF. Non-curators should continue to request changes/report broken links, cross-link requests here at EF, and I am happy with single postings which we can just unsub from. Grouping together may cause confusion and things get missed that way.

I only managed to load one BBC Health-related link this morning but it got a thorough seeing to and I plan on tackling a few more this afternoon, eek I'm late

The point I was making earlier was that if you can find an editable url redirection service, you might want to use that now, to save effort in the future.

If one doesn't exist, then it may be a fairly straightforward thing for Pastey to set up.