Papertrail Download Search Results [HOT]
Jeanine Filbey
Still can't find the answer you need? We'd love to help!
Contact our Customer Support Team via the chat button in the lower right corner of the screen, on +44 (0)1248 719270 or at sup...@papertrail.io.
After configuring Papertrail head over toLibrato and look at the metric listor create a chart and add the Papertrail metrics. The new metrics willonly show if a search result detected events and they were posted to ourAPI:
Please let me know if there is a feature by which we can search the content within a attachment of the tasks also. Generally we have Word files or pdf files as attachments and It would be really useful if asana consider the content within attachments also which using the search function.
Hi Will, it works for me on the search previews, but not if I hit enter to search a partial word. However, since the search preview work so well, I rarely have to complete a search. Does that make sense?
With over 1000 projects it is almost impossible to find anything wothout a good search function. In my opinion the lack of a good search function even is a good reason to look for an alternative because the tool thereby loses half its usefulness.
One of my former students uploaded a paper we just published in a top physics journal without my name. The fraudulent paper is now appearing on the Google Scholar search results below the original paper we published in the physics journal. If people try to cite the fraudulent paper from Google Scholar, my name does not appear. The fraudulent paper without my name is appearing in the Google Scholar profile of all the co-authors.
I wrote to Google Scholar to report this. But I am not sure if they will change their search results to add my name. I am a woman of color, and I feel the former student is making my work invisible and not respecting my contribution. I was the adviser and the main driver of the work.
The student left my lab because he did the same thing for another paper we had. He submitted the paper without my name. The editors contacted me because they knew I was doing that research and it seemed strange to them that I was not an author. I was also leading that research, proposed the idea, wrote almost the whole paper, and the student simply conducted the experiments with my guidance. Because of this prior incident I do not think it is accidental. I don't feel like asking a bully to please be nice and take down the paper from his repository. I know he is problematic and do not want to engage with him.
I mentioned that I was a woman of color because to me the actions of my student are because he does not value my work or contribution. In his mind I do not deserve to be an author. He is making my work invisible. We black women have historically had our work made invisible. Our contributions are seen as not worthy. Similarly, he likely does not see the value I bring to the work and hence is making my work invisible and removing me. In his mind I do not deserve to be an author. I think it is helpful to contextualize that I am black because I think this is one of the reasons why he is blind to the value I bring to the research.
Finally, since Google results are based on measures of how 'important' a website seems to be: you can cite, reference and advertise your original paper as much as possible, to promote it in search results.
I wouldn't think too much about what I can try to solve this issue. If you escalate this, it will get sorted. Your university's lawyers should know what to do to get that illicit version off Google Scholar, Research Gate, et cetera.
Papertrail software's fees are based on two things: how much log data is generated, and how long it will be searchable in real time. Typical plans cover most common needs. You can also build your own. You have access to all functionality.
Papertrail can notify external services (e.g., Slack, Librato, PagerDuty, Campfire, etc.) when new log messages match important searches. These notifications can happen every minute (like for a monitoring system), every hour, or every day, and only occur in periods when Papertrail receives new matches for a given search.
Logentries is a live log management and analytical tool designed to centralize machine-generated logs and make them accessible for development, IT operations, and business analysis. It includes advanced features such as real-time search, alerting and reporting, server monitoring, auto-scaling, and fast log search. It offers easy-to-understand graphical reports and customizable dashboards for a quick and easy visual representation of log data. Logentries dynamically group and correlate logs in a single console to provide an end-to-end view. With its live tailing feature, IT teams can view streaming logs in real-time and highlight important events.
Both Papertrail and Logentries include all the features required to maintain logs and detect errors. However, they differ in their features, functionalities, and offerings. Logentries extracts field values, analyzes logs with search functions, visualizes them using custom dashboards, helps view logs in real-time, and highlights important events with live tailing features. Papertrail has search filters, dashboards, and live tailing features and a web-based log viewer, command-line tools, and long-term archive (S3). Outlined below is a feature analysis of Papertrail and Logentries to help organizations decide which log management solution will be best for their logging requirements.
Log search is one of the most important and basic features of log management. Log search helps you find specific logs in a pool of raw and unfiltered log data simply by entering the search query in a search bar. The log management tools drill down into the raw logs to retrieve the results.
Papertrail works like Google search. Logs can be searched by simply entering the IP address, name of a program, error string, fragments of strings, or a user session name. Papertrail uses Boolean search syntax to make query search fast and easy to read and write. Logentries has more limited search capabilities with features such as RegExp and NOT/AND/OR combining.
With complex IT systems and complex applications, organizations need better log management solutions to manage and analyze logs and to get greater visibility into their entire IT infrastructure. Check out the free trial versions of different tools to get more insights into various features, integration capabilities, and benefits they offer. Papertrail includes advanced log monitoring, intuitive interface, real-time event, log search capabilities, and log colorization features, making it an appropriate tool for log management. It also provides per-user access controls, automated backups, and long-term archives to help fulfill basic logging requirements.
After your analysis is complete, you should finalize your code so that it reproduces exactly the results you will put in your paper. For me, I now always produce an R markdown file at this point. So I clean up my scripts, annotate everything really well and then re-run everything to make sure that I am reproducing the results I expected. I always find mistakes/errors/inconsistencies at this point. R Markdown is great as it will join together each piece of code with the output it produces so you can see it all in one place. You can also add in extensive notes in between the code chunks creating a really nice narrative that is very easy for someone else to read without them having to load up your R script and run your code themselves. You could also just use your final R script (which should be easy to find if you use Github!) though this requires a reviewer to actually run the code themselves to reproduce your results which is tedious.
In about one in 10,000 cases, a published article is retracted. This very often means that the results it reports are flawed. Several authors have voiced concerns about the presence of retracted research in the memory of science. In particular, a retracted result is propagated by citing it. In the published literature, many instances are given of retracted articles that are cited both before and after their retraction. Even worse is the possibility that these articles in turn are cited in such a way that the retracted result is propagated further.
We have conducted a case study to find out how a retracted article is cited and whether retracted results are propagated through indirect citations. We have constructed the entire citation network for this case.
We show that directly citing articles is an important source of propagation of retracted research results. In contrast, in our case study, indirect citations do not contribute to the propagation of the retracted result.
The retraction of the Narayan paper is absent in the 2014 network even though 2 weeks had passed between retraction and our Scopus search. Scopus displays some latency. In the two networks, about two thirds of the papers had not or not yet been cited at the time the network was collected. Of the papers that are cited, the median citation count is 1. The distribution of citation frequencies follows a Zipf law, in line with what has been reported in the literature [34]. In our case, only a few papers are cited more than once. The most often cited paper in both networks is the review paper by Kaczmarek c.s. [35] that directly cites the Narayan paper. The Kaczmarek paper had collected 42 citations in 2014 and 111 citations in 2015. The next most often cited paper is the Narayan paper itself.
Finding out about a retraction becomes even more difficult when we do not look for entire articles but for passages instead. Modern information retrieval research investigates so-called passage retrieval, the retrieval of relevant passages rather than entire articles ([55], ch. 13). A paper is always retracted as a whole even though parts of it may be unaffected by the reasons for retraction. To be useful for practising scientists, a passage retrieval search engine will have to incorporate provisions for retrieving the retracted status of the paper from which the passage stems. To enable search engines to do this, publishers will have to make the status known in a structured way readable by a computer programme.
df19127ead