![]() ![]() The “suggested keys” link should take the user to a page with the ambiguous references, so they can check the “manually edit citation key” box and change the suggested keys. If there are duplicate keys then set the keys automatically as above, but add a non-modal warning box to the top of the Paperpile front page next time they visit, saying something like “could not disambiguate citation keys … view suggested keys… what is this?” With “suggested keys” and “what is this” being hyperlinks. When you import a new reference, query the references the user already has.If the reference gets moved to a label or folder with the “set key manually” setting on then keep the automatic key but check the “set key manually” check box. When a user imports a new reference set the key automatically.When the check-box is ticked, allow the user to edit the citation key in a text box, in the same way they edit paper titles and other data. Add a check-box to every citation and similar label- and folder-level check-boxes to say “set citation key manually”, with a suitable “what is this?” to explain it.Hi that’s a really interesting UX problem! I think any solution would add some extra complexity in several places, but personally I would resolve the issue in this way: That’s a decision we made but we can see the other side where people lose their well curated BibTeX keys.Īnyway, we hope to find a solution that will allow us to offer customizable keys which is efficient and gets all the weird edge cases right. We re-assign everything to make sure we have consistent keys without duplicates. If we keep the assignment forever people will complain that there is a Smith99b without a Smith99a. No matter what we do, we will get e-mails from people telling me our software is brokenīecause if we re-assign the suffixes the citations in their papers will not match anymore. What if I delete Smith99a from my library and then add a new Smith99 will it become Smith99a again or Smith99c because there is already a Smith99b. The problem is how to assign “a” and “b”. But that would not even be the hardest problem. If we allow Smith99a and Smith99b we need to check potentially 10k other papers if a user changes the author. ![]() With a simple de-duplication random key like we add now we can generate the citation key deterministically just from the reference data. Actually we used to have a very early prototype which had a very sophisticated pattern mechanism. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |