Biomedical and Electrical Engineer with interests in information theory, evolution, genetics, abstract mathematics, microbiology, big history, and the entertainment industry including: finance, distribution, representation
Great anthology @ForeignAffairs Who Benefits From Trade? Only missing article by @cesifoti on Why Information Grows https:/
What if we could verify people on the web, but in a distributed way? I made a browser extension http://www.kevinmarks.com/distributed-verify.html #indieweb
Feature suggestion: Separate clearing of speakers and logs · Issue #18 · kevinmarks/noterlive https:/
For use cases in which one is liveblogging regularly recurring events or multi-session/multi-day events, it may be useful to be able to separately clear the logs and clear the speakers (i.e.: a button for each function instead of one that does both). This way one can cut and paste the log, clear it out for the next session/day/other while not needing to re-enter all the speaker data back into the system redundantly - particularly when one may need to look up all the data again.
While the Twitter look-up is useful as a stopgap toward re-populating , the data return doesn't always do the best job as some Twitter bios don't use full names and may or may not include websites, or when users (Tantek for example) have an emoji as their "name" Noterlive doesn't allow modifying (and re-saving) corrected versions of the name (though the workaround for this appears to be to save the speaker, delete the the speaker, modify the text and then resave.)
Mostly these type of fit & finish ideas are meant to serve livetweeters who don't necessarily have lists/data on speakers pre-entered prior to an event and are forced to do the searching on-the-fly during which they are missing potential content.
@dsifford My case will not likely be seen frequently in the first place, so I suspect that your fix should handle the largest number of cases. I don't think one would ever(?) face the issue with respect to journal articles and it's probably only books where it may crop up. In most modern book titles it's relatively infrequent that books will have the same title (usually for marketing purposes) but it may happen in cases like mine here, where some of the texts are older.
The only other potential issue I might see is if someone were doing an analysis of multiple editions of the same book by the same authors and they wanted to cite them all separately. In this case, possibly saving the ISBN field as the unique identifier for the book may be more useful, though it might not differentiate between slightly different "updates" (or corrected versions) of some text editions. (Off hand I know that Springer will often release moderate updates--usually with corrected typos--of a particular edition of a textbook without changing the edition number or the ISBN and some might want to potentially cite slightly different corrections of the same edition of a book.
There may also be edge cases in which one might want to separately cite a pre-print of a journal article (an early draft, on arXiv.org as an example) and then separately cite the final published article with potential updates. You'll then also likely run into this type of matching issue where you'll have the same title and authors but different publications with different dates.
If you want to get into super-edge-cases, there are some areas of scholarship in which one may also be studying time-varying versions of texts as in the Roman De La Rose Project [http:/
I highly suspect that your proposed fix will handle the largest majority of cases as I can't think of an actual real-world example of any of the edge cases I mention in the preceding three paragraphs other than the Roman de la Rose project.
