Data Problems: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 51: Line 51:


-->  To me, one of the things that iDigBio should be concerned about is having the portal be easily usable.  If we want it to be the "one stop" for biodiversity data, we need to see what users can get from other portals and provide improvements to that level of info.  If it's easier to get the info by using a combination of other sources, folks still might do that.  In the examples I sent along on the screen shots, that's what I am trying to show -  what we present should be at least as good as what you can get elsewhere.  If you compare the results of the "label" view that you get in the iDigBio portal with that in the CPNWH portal, it's clear (at least to me....) that ours is inferior for the reasons that I pointed out.
-->  To me, one of the things that iDigBio should be concerned about is having the portal be easily usable.  If we want it to be the "one stop" for biodiversity data, we need to see what users can get from other portals and provide improvements to that level of info.  If it's easier to get the info by using a combination of other sources, folks still might do that.  In the examples I sent along on the screen shots, that's what I am trying to show -  what we present should be at least as good as what you can get elsewhere.  If you compare the results of the "label" view that you get in the iDigBio portal with that in the CPNWH portal, it's clear (at least to me....) that ours is inferior for the reasons that I pointed out.
[[Media:Portal_comments_020215.pdf|See example]]
|valign="top"| R. Rabeler, TTD TCN (2/2015)
|valign="top"| R. Rabeler, TTD TCN (2/2015)
|-
|-
|}
|}