|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||10.72||2||(Pulk,Noah)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Beauty of MO is in its versatility. We are using MO to document our mushroom collections. In the last five years, Oluna donated over 10,000 herbarium specimens to the UBC fungal herbarium. We have MO observations for about every third or fifth herbarium specimen. In identification we are using all possible accessible literature and for naming our specimens we use Index/Species Fungorum. We would like to have our MO observation names “synchronized” with the supporting herbarium specimen, but MO was not designed with herbarium specimens in mind.
When you watch Nathan’s presentation of MO at the first Mycofloristics meeting
you see that Nathan was surprised that some MO users were using it the same way as we do.
We use our MO observations to be a „virtual herbarium“, which is linked to our herbarium specimens. We do not care about MO observations without herbarium specimens and we do not understand why people post imigeless observations.
Yea, what the hell is wrong with people like Christian Schwarz? Not only does he post crap similar to this here, but he now he has the power to shut up anyone who disagrees with him by deleting their content.
This is despairing, this is not how a community site should be run.
So my name proposals were destroyed by someone that did not propose the name or even post the observation. That is terrible, disgusting, dishonest…
2016-07-24 08:16:50 PDT (-0700) : Proposed name destroyed by Christian Schwarz: Imageless
Created: 2013-11-13 02:54:08 CET (+0100)
Last modified: 2016-07-29 19:28:20 CEST (+0200)
Viewed: 89 times, last viewed: 2017-06-17 21:12:52 CEST (+0200)