[seqfan] Re: Links and references in the OEIS, my policy

[Neil Sloane]

If there are a very large number of references and links, why not append a
star (like this (*)) to the best ones?




On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 2:37 PM M. F. Hasler <seqfan at hasler.fr> wrote:

> Indeed the problem is that the reference section does not allow links. So
> if one wants to add a link to a reference, one has to move it to the links
> section.
>
> But nobody would ever delete a serious reference in the links section if
> ever the link would break (which only happens when the link was badly
> chosen).
>
> I was speaking about the "bad" links people add, usually for self
> promotion. Links that are never visited and remain broken for 20 years
> without ever somebody nothing it because nobody would ever look at that web
> page.
>
> In popular sequences like primes, triangular numbers etc, there are too
> many such links which finally make the "links" section useless, or a pain
> to use (the interested reader has to search himself for useful links to
> serious references in an ocean of useless links). It's easy to find 200 web
> pages dealing with primes or triangular numbers or Pythagorean triples etc,
> by just typing this keyword into Google.
>  If OEIS wants to provide something useful, it must not try to compete with
> Google in providing a maximum number of links to web pages which deal with
> a given subject. Google is better at this.
> The added value OEIS *could* provide would consist of carefully choosing
> the best among these. If we don't operate a strict selection, the links
> section is worth less than a single link to google.con/search?q=keyword
>
> I proved this by taking at random a typical sequence in which 80% of the
> *non-serious* links were broken for decades and nobody ever noticed it.
> (I never talked about links to serious references. These are not a problem
> in any way! and actually they almost never break, and in the rare cases
> this happens, a better link to these references is readily found. If ever
> this weren't the case, the reference could be moved back to the references
> section. Nobody ever deletes a serious reference because of a broken link.)
>
> --
> Maximilian
>
> On Sun, Dec 8, 2019, 13:32 jean-paul allouche <
> jean-paul.allouche at imj-prg.fr>
> wrote:
>
> > Why not? in particular if the reference is a paper, a book, etc.
> > and the link... a link. In any case, better a duplicated entry than
> > an --ultimately dead-- link.
> > best
> > jp
> >
> >
> > Le 08/12/2019 à 18:21, michel.marcus at free.fr a écrit :
> > > But then we will have duplicated entries in refs and links ?
> > >
> > > ----- Mail original -----
> > >
> > > De: "Chris Thompson" <cet1 at cam.ac.uk>
> > > À: "Sequence Fanatics Discussion list" <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
> > > Envoyé: Dimanche 8 Décembre 2019 16:09:07
> > > Objet: [seqfan] Re: Links and references in the OEIS, my policy
> > >
> > > On Nov 30 2019, Neil Sloane wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dear Sequence Fans, There have been discussions among the editors
> that I
> > >> don't agree with, andI would like to make some comments:
> > > [ ..snip.. ]
> > >> 3. Replacing a reference by a link is not always a good thing. When
> the
> > >> link breaks, as it will sooner or later, the citation gets [broken
> link]
> > >> added. Whereas the original reference could still be useful if you
> have
> > >> access to the right library.
> > >>
> > >> 3.1 That is why we keep references and links separate.
> > > I do very much agree with this, and consider it a mistake that entries
> > > began to be moved from "References" to "Links" just because an online
> > > version became available. Of course, it is useful to provide such a
> link
> > > if one exists. If the link subsequently breaks and cannot be mended,
> drop
> > > the link but keep the reference - which would be the natural action if
> > > it had remained in the "References" section.
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
> >
>
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>