Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose Geoportals are specific websites whose quality is most often assessed based on design techniques, potential uses, and usability. However, their position within the online ecosystem and their ability to reach users have not been studied as extensively. This presents a research gap worth exploring. This paper aims to assess the quality of selected geoportals in terms of their position within the online ecosystem. Design/methodology/approach The author tested geoportals for the territory of Poland with proprietary domains and subdomains with algorithmic tools. They measured such global quality metrics as Open PageRank, Moz Domain Authority, Page Authority, Trust Flow and Citation Flow. The results were validated and juxtaposed with results for geoportals of selected European Union member states. Findings The study revealed that publishers of (geo)information portals use unfriendly URL addresses, which are of little to no value to crawlers. The highest global metric values were identified for a geoportal with dynamic content and many users. Originality/value The position of a (geo)information portal in the online ecosystem is a synergistic outcome of the qualities of all thematic geoportals. It is recommended that thematic geoportals provided as part of a main geoportal have their own subdomains. Subdomains can potentially become satellites of the main portal, improving its position in the online ecosystem.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Karol Król (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: