[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[EP-tech] Re: Editoring speed problem and Review queue option
Thank you, John,
Yes, that was our thought as well, that it was the database queries that
multiplied.
Thank you for the idea on using automatic fields to simplify the proces. As
I understand you, this will only influence on how the editorial rights are
handled, and not require changes to the eprints types and how the user sees
this. It sounds like a doable approach to the problem, and I will look into
it.
We would probably still like to use the Reviewed Queue package to help the
conference reviewing process, but in a way where we won't rely on it as an
essential element in submission process.
Cheers,
Hugo
Hugo F. Alr?e
Email: hugo.f.alroe at gmail.com
Phone: +45 61775599
2015-12-18 10:45 GMT+01:00 John Salter <J.Salter at leeds.ac.uk>:
> Hi,
> I think that any editorial-scope options that are 'set' or 'namedset'
> fields create some big SQL statements when used together (lots of ORs over
> lots of tables).
>
> It sounds like you need one group for (not conference) and another for
> (conference).
>
> My approach to this would be to create a field to use for groupings of
> editorial rights (
> http://wiki.eprints.org/w/index.php/Training_Video:Automatic_Fields).
> If you have an automatic field that stores a value 'conf' or 'not_conf' -
> you then have a much more efficient (and hopefully quick-enough) way to
> restrict the review queue.
>
> I can't comment on the 'Reviewed' package in the Bazaar - I haven't used
> it.
>
> Cheers,
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eprints-tech-bounces at ecs.soton.ac.uk [mailto:
> eprints-tech-bounces at ecs.soton.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Yuri
> Sent: 18 December 2015 09:11
> To: eprints-tech at ecs.soton.ac.uk
> Subject: [EP-tech] Re: Editoring speed problem and Review queue option
>
> Isn't better to fix the slowness? i wouldn't depend, on big projects, on
> plugins found on Bazaar if I'm not sure they're well mantained.
>
> Il 18/12/2015 09:39, Hugo F. Alr?e ha scritto:
> > Hi
> >
> > We have experienced speed problems when editoring on our archive
> > Organic Eprints (www.orgprints.org <http://www.orgprints.org>). We
> > have +30 editors with responsibilities for different countries and
> > projects, and some of them, but only some, experience that the system
> > is very slow when they are working with the review buffer. Search etc.
> > is not affected.
> >
> > I finally found out that the number of editorial rights restrictions
> > affect the speed of showing the review buffer substantially. We have
> > some 16 eprint types (yes, I know, too many, but the archive has many
> > different kinds of eprints), and one of these (conference submissions)
> > has to be handled by different editors. This means most of our
> > national editors have 15 eprint types (all but the conference
> > submissions) in their editorial rights restrictions, to avoid
> > conference submissions being moved into the archive prematurely by the
> > national editors. Some editors have a number of countries and projects
> > as well in their editorial rights restrictions, which means that
> > showing the buffer can be veeery slow (like, go get a cup of coffee,
> > start on something else, and forget about it).
> >
> > To solve this problem, I think about handling the conference
> > submissions differently. In the ePrints Bazaar I found the Reviewed
> > queue package, which offers a functionality that potentially can meet
> > this purpose by establishing an additional review buffer.
> >
> > For this to work however, eprints of type conference submissions
> > should go automatically into this additional buffer. Is this possible?
> > And if so, how?
> >
> > And preferably it should be possible to restrict most editors from
> > seeing this additional buffer. We have editors with different powers
> > already (some being able to modify the subject trees to e.g. add new
> > research affiliations). But I am not sure whether the additional
> > buffer established by Reviewed queue can be allocated to a specific
> > editor type. Is this possible?
> >
> > Can anybody help on these questions?
> >
> > Best regards
> > Hugo Alroe
> > Initiator (in 2002) of Organic Eprints and presently temporary archive
> > administrator.
> >
> > Email: hugo.f.alroe at gmail.com <mailto:hugo.f.alroe at gmail.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > *** Options:
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/eprints-tech
> > *** Archive: http://www.eprints.org/tech.php/
> > *** EPrints community wiki: http://wiki.eprints.org/
> > *** EPrints developers Forum: http://forum.eprints.org/
>
>
> *** Options: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/eprints-tech
> *** Archive: http://www.eprints.org/tech.php/
> *** EPrints community wiki: http://wiki.eprints.org/
> *** EPrints developers Forum: http://forum.eprints.org/
>
> *** Options: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/eprints-tech
> *** Archive: http://www.eprints.org/tech.php/
> *** EPrints community wiki: http://wiki.eprints.org/
> *** EPrints developers Forum: http://forum.eprints.org/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/eprints-tech/attachments/20151218/b53aa9cc/attachment.html