- General
-
Bugs
entries appear duplicated when searching
(I've posted that already as a follow-up on a closely related thread, but I didn't receive a reply yet and I can't reply to it further, so I re-post it here in its own thread.)
First, where to find the data that proves the bug:
- bibfile: https://bercher.net/bibtex/bibliography.bib
- page with search field: https://bercher.net/my-publications/all-publications
Bug description:
When
some works have the same title and authors (but different venues, e.g.,
first a workshop and then they turn into a conference, or they are
first a conference and then there's an extended tech-report), then:
- they first appear *correct* in the publication list, *but*
- once *any* search was used, they become duplicated.
How to verify that bug?
- Open the webpage above and *without using the search* navigate down to 2008. You will see two different entries:
- Now use the search. Type anything, doesn't matter! Then delete it again
-
To have a second example, you can also check out the papers with
keys Johnson2022aSATPruning and Johnson2022bSATPruning; this gives the
same behaviour.
Customer support service by UserEcho
Thanks for the exemplary bug report. One correction: This only happens "When some works have the same title and authors" and the same year and then searches for it. Therefore this really doesn't affect a lot of people. Personally I think it is bad style to publish two different papers using the exact same title in the same year. The above conditions are not the only place where confusion may arise. I think adding a suffix, like "extended version" or "with proofs" or similar is the better practice.
Agree to that assessment, but that might not always be in control of the people using the tool. I believe that my list is good proof for this: one paper is from 2008, when I did not even have any degree, and the second case I was middle author and thus not any driving force either. So it apparently simply happens, sometimes out of control of those using this platform. (I have however seen this before too, especially for workshop papers (like in one of the two cases reported), because workshop papers are often completely consumed by their follow-up versions; sometimes it's even the very exact same paper. In such cases I would understand if some argued that it makes sense (or at least "is OK"). Anyway, thanks for looking into it!