Observation 10957: Agaricales sensu lato
When: 2008-08-30
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Looks still young. In Acadian forest.

Proposed Names

28% (1)
Eyes3
Recognized by sight

Please login to propose your own names and vote on existing names.

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
I’d like to point out that
By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2011-05-21 02:01:08 CDT (-0400)

thanks in part to better equipment and also increasing experience my photos on more recent observations are generally far better than on my earliest ones. Expect another one soon.

LOL Im a terrible Picture taker
By: Charles Seltenright Sr (Shroomin Yooper)
2011-05-20 06:48:36 CDT (-0400)

Im guilty!!!But I am trying to improve as I want to contribute something that someday may help somebody else.Seems theres a few people been a little touchy and hornery on here lately.I just love this site and will avoid the arguements and would rather help than add fuel to the fire.A appreciate any and all advice as long as its done in a nice way.And everyone that has commented in this OB has given me that in the past.I rather like rubbing elbows with people with your knowledge.It makes MO very unique and cool.Id rather see it stay just as it is many years from now.And by then all my crappy OB’s will be lost in that trash can of unknown fungi sp.

thanks for your comments, Noah.
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2011-05-19 18:51:10 CDT (-0400)

I agree that the environment should always be an encouraging one. It’s worth pointing out that although we may be miles away from approaching it (I wonder, how close are we?), there is most certainly a ceiling for all of this data retention, and what you call a “trash can” (which has a handful of gems, mind you) is actually in possession of binary real estate of equal size as any other observation.

Turning a blind eye to anything further back than 10 pages ignores the important database function that MO serves. There are obs of mine from Bolivia which will stay Agaricales until the end of time (mostly thanks to Larry’s addiction to Sony Handycams) but they constitute a record which (hopefully still) correspond to an herbarium specimen, which could serve as a source for micrographs sometime in the future. I see MO making big, big developments in both directions: instant and archival, and believe that each deserves equal attention. There are countless stories over at Pivotal detailing potential features, fixes and improvements in each of these categories and then some.

The integrity of the parts (observations) which make up the whole (site), depends on some kind of quality control. What that quality control should/will look like, is an important and ongoing discussion.

I have been one quick to criticize
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2011-05-19 17:40:31 CDT (-0400)

and have even asked “what’s the point” but with MO’s new ways of sorting base on image quality we can drop these to the bottom and not even look at them.
I have been frustrated with many pictures on this site; not showing the part of the mushroom I want to see, not being clear enough, bad colors, etc. but have come to accept that it’s a database with the good and the bad and everything in between. I wouldn’t what somebody to come here and read your comments Danny and then not post because they didn’t think their pictures were up to standers. We need people like Paul all over the world taking pictures of mushrooms and posting them. Yes we all can look at our pictures and ask “is this good enough to post?” but what’s good to one person… It doesn’t take long for pictures like this to disappear into the black hole that is Fungi sp

I have long considered most of the old “Fungi sp” the trash bin for MO. We have all gone through it, trying to pull up bits and pieces and place names on them. Stuff like this would have been better off being left buried in the deep dark dumpster.

the question is
By: Jonathan M
2011-05-19 17:20:17 CDT (-0400)

Why would we put an Unidentifiable blurry mushroom on a international database, we can’t do anything with that mushroom pic, even try to id it, and even with a name this pic is not really worthyfull and don’t show the mushroom caracther for id. that my opinion however…

you’re right, britney
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2011-05-19 17:15:51 CDT (-0400)

sort of, anyway. it was heavy handed of me. I’ve been responsible for uploading many a god awful photograph myself on this site (most of which were taken by another collector, but a handful are my own). fair enough if the top criteria can’t be met each and every time. not one of my observations has any microscopy attached. i’ve left out substrate, spore color, not shown things in cross section. i’m as guilty as anyone, and so many of my own submissions will likely forever resist an ID beyond the broadest of taxonomic ranks.

my comments for Paul come from some frustration in attempting to go through the backog of Fungi sp. observations to find that a handful of users routinely submitted observation after observation, seemingly without regard for any feedback from the community who, on more than one occasion, stressed the importance of photography fundamentals.

to my mind, an observer uploads an observation for one of two reasons:

1. to acquire an ID

or

2. to add to the site’s database or one’s own cache of collections.

i’m really only reiterating dan’s question here:

http://mushroomobserver.org/11212

what’s the point?

just jumping on the bandwagon here
By: Britney Ramsey (Riverdweller)
2011-05-19 12:00:00 CDT (-0400)

I find it offensive when I log on here and see rude and plain old shitty comments about anyone else’s photography or quality or skill/lack of skill. This place is for people of ALL levels of skill. PERIOD.
How bout when a member here doesn’t like something or it doesn’t meet their ‘expectations’……just keep it to yourself. It takes less time to ignore something than it does to insult someone or judge them.
I see this happen on another member’s photos all the time. Maybe just maybe this is the very best one could do in the moment.
That’s my two cents. ty
p.s. Can someone direct me to the rule here on this forum about the requirements for posting photography? I looked everywhere for a rule or guideline that discourages ‘crappy’ photos from being shared.

Thank you for your opinion.
By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2011-05-19 03:03:52 CDT (-0400)

But I’d have preferred if you’d expressed it in private or kept it to yourself.

What part of that did you not understand the first time I said it? The correct response would have been to quietly move on with your life. Instead, you not only repeated your insulting comment, but actually elaborated upon it — exactly 100% the wrong response.

“If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”

Now please drop this.

why?
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2011-05-18 18:58:10 CDT (-0400)

your observation is public. it is publicly awful. nothing personal. i see this was made going on three years ago, and, as pointed out by another member, you’ve made considerable improvement since. i simply wonder what good observations like these serve for the site other than to lead by negative example. short of that, it’s utterly useless.

Thank you for your opinion.
By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2011-05-18 05:13:28 CDT (-0400)

But I’d have preferred if you’d expressed it in private or kept it to yourself.

doesn’t look young.
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2011-05-17 20:55:02 CDT (-0400)

just looks awful. this whole batch of obs should just be sacked.

Created: 2008-09-12 01:21:11 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2012-08-30 21:36:47 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 329 times, last viewed: 2016-11-06 19:53:47 CST (-0500)
Show Log