More for my own benefit than anything else I've decided to list some of the things I plan to work on this year. If nothing else, it may make sobering reading this time next year. A knowledge graph for biodiversity Google's introduction of the "knowledge graph" gives us a happy phrase to use when talking about linking stuff together.

I spend a lot of time searching the web for bibliographic metadata and links to digitised versions of publications.

Google's Knowledge Graph can enhance search results by display some structured information about a hit in your list of results. It's available in the US (i.e., you need to use www.google.com, although I have seen it occasionally appear for google.co.uk. Here is what Google displays for Eidolon helvum (the straw-coloured fruit bat). You get a snippet of text from Wikipedia, and also a map from the BBC Nature Wildlife site.

Anyone who works with taxonomic databases is aware of the fact that they have errors. Some taxonomic databases are restricted in scope to a particular taxon in which one or more people have expertise, these then get aggregated into larger databases, which may in turn be aggregated by databases whose scope is global. One consequence of this is that errors in one database can be propagated through many other databases.

According to Google Analytics BioStor has experienced a big drop in traffic since the start of October: At one point I'm getting something like 4500 visits a week, now it's just over a thousand a week. I'm guessing this is due to Google's 'Panda' update. I suspect part of the problem is that in terms of text content BioStor is actually pretty thin.

Jeff Atwood, one of the co-founders of Stack Overflow recently wrote a blog post Trouble In the House of Google, where he noted that several sites that scrape Stack Overflow content (which Stack Overflow's CC-BY-SA license permits) appear higher in Google's search rankings than the original Stack Overflow pages . When Stack Overflow chose the CC-BY-SA license they made the assumption that: Jeff Atwood's post goes on to argue

Some quick notes on OCR. Revisiting my DjVu viewer experiments it really struck me how "dirty" the OCR text is. It's readable, but if we were to display the OCR text rather than the images, it would be a little offputting.

Andrew Su has posted an analysis of Gene Wiki, a project to provide Wikipedia pages on every human gene: This result is interesting in that an existing resource (Gene Cards) beats Wikipedia, but only just.

Given that one response to my post on Fungi in Wikipedia was to say that fungi are also charismatic, so maybe I should try [insert unsexy taxon name here]. So, I've now looked at all the species I extracted from Wikipedia (nearly 72,000), ran the Google searches, and here are the results: Site How many times is it the top hit?

One response to the analysis I did of the Google rank of mammal pages in Wikipedia is to suggest that Wikipedia does well for mammals because these are charismatic. It's been suggested that for other groups of taxa Wikipedia might not be so prominent in the search results. As a quick test I extracted the 1552 fungal species I could find in Wikipedia and repeated the analysis.