Observation 137004: Chlamydopus meyenianus (Klotzsch) Lloyd
When: 2013-05-02
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

52% (2)
Eye3
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
Byrain
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2016-07-26 01:26:35 CEST (+0200)

That you’ve seen it a few times and managed to link one non-example doesn’t add anything to your point; I was actually assuming ~fraud had happened and now I’m actually less confident about that.

The current voter weight system isn’t perfect, but it’s a LOT better than nothing, and it’s not hard to imagine it being improved. That’s a separate issue from imageless observations.

Do you not understand that statistically, a higher MO-assigned probability percentage for a name actually corresponds to a higher probability of that name being best? It doesn’t have to be perfect to be useful.

My point here is that even if I had “Called It That”, MO’s judgment of the name Tulostoma would still be in the 80%s, fundamentally lower than 100%.

MO should not distort its policies to accommodate third-party idiots.

I seen it a few times.
By: Byrain
2016-07-25 23:14:24 CEST (+0200)

Obs 188042 is one example, the votes have since been changed.

Voting confidence is a plastic measure, as in it can change without any corresponding record and is based entirely upon number of observations submitted rather than actual expertise. Its a biased system and does not really make any one observation more confident than another by itself. Additionally it does not change how third party websites use our data.

Citing certain other users’ irresponsible behavior
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2016-07-25 22:46:46 CEST (+0200)

(how often has that actually happened?) doesn’t help your case against allowing imageless observations. It helps a case for moderation of certain users.

I have no idea what you mean with the second sentence, sorry.

In the past…
By: Byrain
2016-07-25 22:39:17 CEST (+0200)

When users have posted imageless observations with a “Could be” or “Promising” vote they have just changed it to “I would call it that” to avoid that restriction.

Nevertheless voting strength does not really change anything or is in any way relevant to the existing issue.

By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2016-07-25 22:30:35 CEST (+0200)

1. I proposed Tulostoma with “Could Be”, not the “I’d Call It That” necessitated by imageless observations.

2. Even if I had, MO’s limitation of even the top users’ “I’d Call It That” vote to <90% certainty is an excellent safeguard to your imagined problem.

If this was an imageless observation…
By: Byrain
2016-07-25 17:01:29 CEST (+0200)

Would anyone have ever realized this is Chlamydopus meyenianus?

Thanks for posting pics of this cool species Pulk!

Dreaming of cretaceum
By: Bob Chapman (Disciseda)
2013-06-20 20:19:04 CEST (+0200)

The habitat in open sand makes me think of cretaceum — but the rhizomorphs seem a bit too fine, not as bold as in cretaceum. Could be deterioration due to advanced age. Could be I think it would be cool to find cretaceum in Washington.

I’ll post some pix of cretaceum for comparison.

Created: 2013-06-20 09:51:10 CEST (+0200)
Last modified: 2016-07-24 20:36:39 CEST (+0200)
Viewed: 103 times, last viewed: 2016-12-02 18:58:19 CET (+0100)
Show Log