mhluongo

65 ms·

751.
by mhluongo 14y ago
Well shit. How were you guys even offering delivery for said sandwich if Brown wasn't involved? Are you moving to power delivery yourselves?
752.
by mhluongo 14y ago
I'd love to see this from someone outside the project- it's pretty clear from blog posts, etc that Titan was made to handle larger graphs, but what are the tradeoffs, and where are the pain points?
753.
by mhluongo 14y ago
Very exciting stuff! Looking forward to seeing you guys at DDT.
754.
by mhluongo 14y ago
Proper link: http://scholr.ly/person/5486566/lise-getoor
755.
by mhluongo 14y ago
Hm, right now we've got the same coverage as CiteSeerX (where most of our data comes from), and are working on expanding. What sources do you particularly think are lacking? We've talked quite a bit internally about whether to include citat
756.
by mhluongo 14y ago
It does take some magic. Luckily there's been quite a bit of work done of the topic (eg, Lise Getoor & co http://scholr.ly/person/5486566/lise-getoor)- we should show some serious improvements soon. In the meantime, I'll manually merg
757.
by mhluongo 14y ago
We're trying to provide a better interface for searching computer science at http://scholr.ly . I'd love your feedback.
758.
by mhluongo 14y ago
Check out the rest of Geoffrey Hinton's work as well- http://scholr.ly/person/3595934/geoffrey-e-hinton
759.
by mhluongo 14y ago
mekarpeles - an intro to the PeerLibrary team would be awesome- I'll do that. I've loved the GitHub for science analogy ever since it first surfaced a couple years ago- I couldn't agree more.
760.
by mhluongo 14y ago
After seeing the OpenJournal HN post ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5287825 ), I realized we never let HN know that we enable comments! For now we're testing user interest with Disqus, but are planning a more sophisticated system. We
761.
Scholrly Launches Comments for Academic Papers(scholrly.tumblr.com)
3 points by mhluongo 14y ago|1 comments
762.
by mhluongo 14y ago
We launched http://scholr.ly in January- we've still got plenty of issues, but we handle some of your use cases, like citation linking. We also first-class authors so you can see an easy summary of a researcher's work. We're still working
763.
Discuss Computer Science Papers on Scholrly(scholrly.tumblr.com)
1 points by mhluongo 14y ago|0 comments
764.
by mhluongo 14y ago
It seems like you guys have had a marketing/awareness issue for a while. In fact, I'd love to talk to you about it off-HN- I've wondered if we (@ scholr.ly) could find a way to collaborate.
765.
by mhluongo 14y ago
There's been a recent push for optionally open reviews- I know some of the PLoS properties allow it.
766.
by mhluongo 14y ago
I think this varies heavily per field- some disciplines are more collaborative (eg, CS) and others are more competitive (biomed).
767.
by mhluongo 14y ago
Hm, what about APIs for desktop use (eg, Windows APIs)? I think I see where you're going but this doesn't seem to hold water as it's stated.
768.
by mhluongo 14y ago
On search context- very good point. We're putting together a couple graphical summaries to try for profiles, as well as exposing keywords on search results soon. I think you're absolutely right about result trustworthiness and backing up wh
769.
by mhluongo 14y ago
We don't have an API yet, but it's definitely in the works. Thanks for the listserv link- we're relatively plugged in to the library community but it's tough to keep up!
770.
by mhluongo 14y ago
Sorry! That's a regression, we'll take care of it- thank you!
771.
by mhluongo 14y ago
We're only open-access right now, so there's no need to supply university credentials. Just click on a result to expand it and get the full-text, or go to the paper result page and click "full-text".
772.
by mhluongo 14y ago
I'm not as surprised. I'm not certain MSR markets the project at all, for all the promise it has.
773.
by mhluongo 14y ago
We're only indexing computer and information science related articles right now. One of the interface's most obvious failures is communicating that- we'll try to improve the messaging and make that more clear. Coverage of material in philos
774.
by mhluongo 14y ago
First, thanks for the honesty. We're far from where we want to be and I appreciate the criticism. I'll address your criticisms in another comment, but first I'd like to ask- what could we do to improve your academic search? Where are you co
775.
by mhluongo 14y ago
Oh! certainly! We're a small startup, and don't quite have the manpower for an API yet- but if we keep moving, we'll get there. I really like what Mendeley has done so far. I've chatted a bit with them about integrating with their API, ours
776.
by mhluongo 14y ago
I think I answered this question on the other comment, but more concretely you can * browse the citation and co-authorship graphs without jumping between PDFs. * find authors relevant to your searches- when we do our job right, serendipitou
777.
by mhluongo 14y ago
Right now, I think we'll be most useful to grad students. I think we'll also be a good tool for lit review, less cohesive fields, or interdisciplinary work. We've found your anecdote to be true time and again, though the effect varies by fi
778.
by mhluongo 14y ago
I don't mean to be obtuse, but what would that look like? We've been focused on providing a better browsing experience with these citations, but if there's a demand for them in a different format I don't see why we wouldn't provide it.
779.
by mhluongo 14y ago
In terms of search relevance- sorry, it needs to be way more clear that we're just computer science right now. Re: funny authors- these things happen when you use extracted metadata. I've been fairly successful internally cleaning it up,
780.
by mhluongo 14y ago
Actually- we address some of that! So we don't quite provide a Zotero data utopia (yet...), but * each paper page has PDF links and BibTeX * we extract citation data from PDFs so you can browse the citation graph immediately. We're working

More ›