This was still open on my desk - sorry for the late reply.

On 4/10/18 6:09 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 05:25:52PM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote:

An immediate concern of mine is that we have no visibility of our
task page with Google. A strategic mistake apparently was
to have the actuall RRID hidden in the URL rather than having printed
it flat out in the task description. I thought this was enough to
have the page found while not dominating e.g. the package's description
in the tracker.
Can you please give an example?  I do not understand what you prefer
over what we just have.

Instead of <a href="">SciCrunch</a> it could be <a href="the same">RRID:SCR_..</a>.

Location-wise maybe with the green area would be nicer. I am not sure if the problem google has with our page is not also of some other nature, though. The current page header of that page is lacking a description. Not being an expert in search-engine optimisation, I just iterated through and did not find much else to add, really. Suggestions:

<meta name="description" content="List of packages in the Debian Linux distribution curated by the ${preprety:blend or whatever} community. Here shown the subset of packages ${task description}." />

Maybe you (or some SEO pro on this list) find some more bits

As a totally unrelated note:  I have the feeling that seeking for Debian
relevant things (for instance in our mailing lists) became not as
successful as it was some years ago.  I'm more and more falling back to
seeking in my private mail archive using notmuch.

Well, all this RRID stuff to me is a prelude to help automating workflow environments. If we are not biological, then there is not too much to discuss, we just need someone to do the work ;)

While googling around I was pointed to this list of what the authors
considered common software in bioinformatics at
Interesting list.  Do you have some suggestion what to do with it?

Nothing. It just kind of helps to assess where we are. We have a good coverage of that list. Not perfect, but good, i.e. good enough to come up with a series of workflow descriptions.


Reply via email to