Editing text on a publisher page

The description that appears on a GBIF publisher page is actually one of the first bits of text that a prospective publisher enters when registering and requesting endorsement, so it’s not uncommon to realize after that fact that you’d like to edit it.

However, the information is stored in the GBIF registry and is not publicly accessible. So anyone hoping to change this text has to request us to make the change. Should the need arise, the best approach is to send your proposed changes to helpdesk@gbif.org

1 Like

Any chance of a GBRDS-like solution (previous GBIF demo system) with a data-node (and participant-node) login authorization to simply edit the description, name, logo, etc displayed?

Hi Dag.
The timeline is not set, but it’s on the backlog. I’d expect 2019 Q1 or so unless it gets raised as very important.

Is this a major burden for you? We could explore opening up editing for a few trusted contacts already. The interface is not the best (I wrote it and I am not a web developer) but it does work.

Thanks! I will not say that it is not a major burden, but then again updating data-node and dataset descriptions are lagging behind the workplan for the Norwegian Node. Making it even easier for data-nodes themselves to update and maintain their own metadata would be useful. But then again we provide most data-nodes with their own login to the GBIF.no IPT, but few actually do log in.

This issue of easier updates to the metadata descriptions came up in the discussions at the European Nodes Meeting in Tallinn - which is why I added the comment here.

Thanks, Dag! Just to clarify on a detail: publisher (organization, institution) metadata are maintained centrally so far, but dataset metadata have always been under curation of the individual publishers. As soon as those are updated at the local access point, the indexing procedures will catch up on the changes at the registry end.

We discussed during the Nodes meeting an optimal wish to seprate the updating of the dataset metadata also from the IPT. In part it might (perhaps) be easier for the data-node to get login and edit directly at GBIF.org (or another site such as eg. an improved GRBio) than on the IPT.

But also, as was brought up in the Nodes Meeting discussions, data-files (eg. Darwin Core archives) might include multiple datasets sometimes from multiple data-nodes. Adding the appropriate datasetID inside the datafile is easier than splitting the files per “dataset”. (I mean to recall this use case was brought up by Henk, Netherland).

I can also think of another use case (not discussed at the Nodes Meeting) of data from the same “dataset” more conviniently published in more than one data-archive (eg. Darwin Core archive) - for different reasons.

These are minor obstacles, but many small minor improvements will combined save many national Node helpdesks for a lot of time.