[WEB4LIB] Re: Second web directory?

[Karen G. Schneider]

Let me respond VERY quickly to say that we at lii.org welcome input,
always, and we certainly have our share of broken links, but overall,
compared to other Web portals, if we are to make data-driven conclusions
and then frost the cupcake with the feedback we receive on a daily
basis, we have very good data quality.  In terms of what our data
quality "currently" is, our data quality is better than it has been, and
hopefully will continue this trend.

So I am grateful for this "foot in the door" to do what would otherwise
be aimless bragging.  

Every week we run a report to show broken/moved links.  In this past
quarter, our Validation Report averaged 4% broken links--down from
5%--and that's doubly good, because we now do a trick with some URLs to
extend their shelf life that ends up with them showing up as 302s when
actually they're just fine.  (It's triply good if you consider that not
only our overall size, but also our rate of growth, have steadily grown
over the past several years.) From talking to peers in the Web portal
community, 4% reported broken links is highly respectable.  I wish it
were 0%, but then, most libraries only dream of the kind of production
and data quality we sustain with the budget we have.  (And of course, we
ask indexers to inspect their batch of sites at least once a month,
because any number of sites move or break and never show up on this
report.)

A bit more: we have an active weeding/updating program, with both paid
staff and volunteers participating in evaluating records, and run a
weekly report of 404s, 302s, etc.  We also have excellent documentation
on how to use the report (crafted by a nationally-known writer <g> ),
and we have checks and balances where, for example, indexers cannot
contribute content if they rise above a certain percentage of reported
errors in the Validation Report; we don't want people to slap records in
and walk away (and in fact we have weeders periodically review the sites
from indexers who are no longer with us).  Our training emphasizes life
cycle management, including an entire section in our course for indexers
reserved for maintaining and replacing records.  (And speaking of data
quality, we also teach copyright, and we have an excellent Style Manual,
if this nationally-known writer does say so herself.)

We also have a very new feature in which anyone can comment on an
lii.org record.  This has been wonderful in terms of providing one more
venue for learning about broken, moved, abandoned or changed sites.  

I would encourage a data-driven comparison of content quality between
lii.org and any comparable portal, and I would be highly receptive to
any "lessons learned" from such a study. We not only welcome, but
encourage and plead you to use the comment feature when you find a
broken or moved link associated with an lii.org record.  However, the
data and the comments we receive about lii.org (barring this one on
Web4Lib) very strongly suggest that this is a resource its staff,
indexers, and funding agency can be very proud of.

----------------------------------------------
Karen G. Schneider kgs at lii.org  http://lii.org 
Coordinator, Librarians' Index to the Internet
lii.org  New This Week:     http://lii.org/ntw 
      lii.org: Information You Can Trust!
----------------------------------------------   
 

:-----Original Message-----
:From: web4lib at webjunction.org
[mailto:web4lib at webjunction.org] On
:Behalf Of Nancy Sosna Bohm
:Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 10:18 AM
:To: Multiple recipients of list
:Subject: [WEB4LIB] Re: Second web directory?
:
:on 4/24/02 9:59 AM, Charles P. Hobbs at chhobbs at cdrewu.edu wrote:
:"...What about Librarian's Index to the Internet?..."
:
:Considering how many dead links lii.org  currently has, perhaps it
would be
:Fourth World?
:
:--Nancy
:
:
:on 4/24/02 9:59 AM, Charles P. Hobbs at chhobbs at cdrewu.edu wrote:
:
:>
:>
:> george at library.caltech.edu wrote:
:>
:>> Before getting totally off track:
:>>
:>> First World -- Europe & the Mediterranean cultures, also commonly
Old
:World;
:>
:> I've heard "Second World" used for the old Soviet bloc...
:>
:>>
:>>
:>> which in turn leads to New World -- Western Hemisphere, but
primarily
:the
:>> industrially advanced US and Canada;
:>>
:>> giving rise to the less developed nations in Africa, Asia, South
:America,
:>> and occasionally, Oceania, being labeled Third World, but primarily
:based
:>> upon the order in which large scale industrial development has
occurred.
:>>
:>