Hi Joe: On Tue, 25 May 2010, Joe Blaylock wrote: > I did choose the more generic term specifically. I think that it's > pretty easy to imagine that in the future we'll be documenting many > different ways for users to gather metadata beyond simply > citation-related information.
Yes, and having all bibliometrics on a single help page risks making it too long and too encompassing, which was my concern. Imagine sections on testing Zipf's law, extracting keyword frequencies and other content analysis, on potential visualisation tools... Some bibliometrics can go far beyond the regular user's (physicist's) interests, hence I think the most popular help topics like citation analysis may better live on their dedicated help pages. This does not prevent us from having a central bibliometrics entry page later, linking to all the dedicated user-oriented metric help pages and various librarian-oriented metric pages and ``howto export data for my university for further local bibliometrics analysis by third party tools'' that we'd need to write up. Best regards -- Tibor Simko
