Hi Adam,

Thanks for the contribution!

Regarding your question: Yes, exactly. In the bibtex file you upload (and which you can later edit directly on bibbase), you can include url fields that point to files you've also uploaded. You can specify absolute URLs in those fields, or, for convenience, you can also just list the filename, in which case they will resolve to URLs on the same host and same sub-path as the bib file itself. 

For example, if I have these files in my file manager on BibBase:

and the cf.bib file contains an entry with the field:

  url = {1909.11604.pdf}

then when I render that bib file it will resolve that filename to the file in my account.

Yes, confirmed, I saw that comment. We haven't yet found the time to investigate it more so I can't, at this point, make any promises. There are a number of issues that rank higher in priority right now, either because they are required by premium users, or because they affect more users. So I can't quite tell how long it will be until we get to it. If using straight-out bibtex files, hosted either on your own server, on github, or directly on bibbase, then I highly recommend that. They are best supported and give you the greatest level of control.

Hi Adam,

Awesome, thanks in advance for the shout on Twitter! In terms of donating: no, we don't have a mechanism for that, but you can sign up for one of our premium plans instead if you want. They start at $4/month and you can cancel any time.

Hi Adam,

Yes, that makes sense. Regarding the "-1" suffix: Zotero seems to be using different algorithms when exporting to users via the UI and to other services via their API, because the bibtex we receive from them does not have those suffixes. However, it was easy for us to add that feature on our end as well, so we just did. Personally I don't see much of a reason to enforce the uniqueness of bibtex entry keys and it doesn't break anything.

Your page now shows all 689 publications.

Hope that helps! If you like BibBase and want to help us, please consider giving us a shout out on Twitter: https://twitter.com/bibbase.

Thanks,

Christian

Hi Adam,

This took me a while to figure out, but eventually I realized that at least in part this seems to be due to duplicate entry keys in the bibtex:

> grep @ 4501563.bib  | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head -n 20
      2 @unpublished{piketty_long-run_2010,
      2 @unpublished{pellegrini_what_2016,
      2 @techreport{noauthor_global_2015,
      2 @techreport{noauthor_global_2014,
      2 @techreport{noauthor_global_2013,
      2 @techreport{noauthor_global_2012,
      2 @techreport{noauthor_global_2011,
      2 @techreport{noauthor_global_2010,
      2 @misc{noauthor_oecd_nodate,
      2 @misc{noauthor_new_2020-1,
      2 @misc{noauthor_new_2020,
      2 @article{saez_wealth_2016,
      2 @article{piketty_income_2003,
      1 @unpublished{zucman_missing_2013,
      1 @unpublished{zoutman_effect_2014,
      1 @unpublished{xavier_wealth_2020,
      1 @unpublished{wolff_household_2021,
      1 @unpublished{wolff_household_2017,
      1 @unpublished{waltl_multidimensional_2020,
      1 @unpublished{waldenstrom_national_2015,

Dear Benjamin,

Thanks for reporting this. The issue is (or was) that our new link uses the same CSS class name, "page", as already used by other elements on your page, with styling already applied. This is the style your page added to the "page" class:

This style was now also applied to the new links added by BibBase and that's what caused the layout issue.

Seeing your case made us realize that "page" is probably too generic of a class name for us to use, especially when we really mean "the bibbase page". So we've gone ahead and changed our class name to "bibbase_page" now. This fixes the layout issue you saw on your page.

Thanks again for reporting!

Best,

Christian

This is already supported when just leaving groupby blank:

https://bibbase.org/show?bib=https://bibbase.org/bibs/knuth_selected.bib&groupby=&hidemenu=true

It's recommended to use that with the sort option. See "Customization options" in the documentation for more details.

Hi Pascal,

Thanks for following up on this! By now we actually support this. It's actually one of the most popular features of our group plans. In those plans, all users in your organization have their own data sources that they can maintain in whichever way they like -- bibtex file directly on BibBase, a URL to a bibtex file hosted elsewhere, Zotero, Mendeley, DBLP. All those sources are merged, with deduplication, at query time when a query for the organization's publications are made.

Could you point me to your site? Then I can have a look. I definitely think you are on the right track though, of adding more CSS that defined font-sizes for the currently unstyled items. The reason you can't find any mentioning of font-size for the titles is because our theme specifically doesn't want to overwrite the style suggested by the surrounding web page. This is so that it is consistent with the rest of the page. Usually this is a benefit, but it sounds like your page defined certain styles that don't make much sense. I've be curious to take a look and see why, but in the end the solution will almost certainly look something like:

.bibbase_paper {
    font-size: 14px;
}

Or something like that.

By the way, if you are interested in more examples: all our themes have their own CSS file, e.g., https://bibbase.org/css/styles/dividers.css, and there is also a shared one that is common to all unless explicitly disabled: https://bibbase.org/css/styles/common.css .

Hi Adam,

Please help me understand your concern with those additional fields better. The BibBase-internal use of this bibtex is probably of no concern to you, so I suspect that you are just worried about the bibtex that BibBase displays with each publication and offers users to download from your page? If my understanding is correct, then yes, that's something we could implement -- a kind of filter that only hides from that display and download all those additional fields.

In terms of setting the right priority for this, what kind of page are you setting up, for an individual or for a group of people? are you a premium subscriber or will this all be done using the free plan? We have quite a bit of backlog of features needed by our premium subscribers that we need to focus on at the moment, so it might be a while until we get to this if it's under the free plan.