|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||5.59||1||(Noah)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
that mandates that observations must be accompanied by images. this has been hashed out several times elsewhere, most importantly in the comments of the name Imageless (http://mushroomobserver.org/name/show_name/31080).
The extent to which anyone considers any record legitimate is a matter of individual discretion. It is an imperfect, somewhat faith and consensus based system, not unlike taxonomy in general, which requires some amount of vigilance on the part of the investigator to separate the invalid from the integrous.
That said, to the extent that there are “better” and “worse” observations here on MO, I say the more information, the better (within reason). It seems like this is a shared preference. It’s the difference between empiricism and inference. I, too, would much rather confirm or deny an ID by comparing physical attributes than blindly speculate on the likelihood of collector(s) error, but that is not always an option. What is always an option is how we each decide to consider any given observation.
as well as a back-up specimen, there will be no Mycoflora project, which is meant to document NA mycoflora and provide tangible proof of the existence of these various species, not just hearsay.
“Citizen Scientist”…I gotta say, the very words give me the creeps, and smacks of smarm. Are Scientists not Citizens? Is that a “feel-good” word, like giving everyone a medal for just showing up? I am a citizen and a scientist, but I am not a Citizen Scientist.
Yes, folks not trained formally in biology can still help out on any project that they choose and are interested in, and that can find a use for them, but why not raise that bar for everyone? You don’t have to be an ace fungal taxonomist to document your finds with a photo and dried specimen.
And if you profess to be so, why not raise the bar and be a good example for others to follow?
Why not do the whole job, and do it correctly, so that it is actually meaningful?
I have no desire to get into a discussion with you about ebird, Christian. I don’t even own a smartphone, and I am livid when I see folks using theirs in the field to call in birds. What about the birds themselves? Don’t they count?
Or is it all about making lists?
That “no shotgun” clause is why I quit the Audubon society! ;) Misnomer, eh? At least, not so true to the spirit of the real Audubon.
When both your voices magically appear on the same sightings where I post, especially if I question, the horror! one of your IDs, I gotta think you are working in concert. It’s deja vu all over again. I mean, you are still working on a book together, no? So in a sense, you are a team.
I do find it cute, as opposed to intimidating or convincing.
My Momma taught me to fight my own battles. Even taxonomic ones.
But carry on. We are who we are.
There is no tag team. I’m dealing directly with you and your comments.
If you don’t use eBird I can’t further the conversation with you. It is the single most successful citizen science project ever undertaken (and no they don’t send out complementary shotguns).
Also, I’m glad you’re super into Audubon and his illustrations and collecting style… unfortunately he completely fabricated stuff as well (oh but don’t worry there were illustrations and unlabeled specimens!).
Yeah, best case scenario, full documentation exists. But that’s not the way a flora will be put together for the thousands upon thousands of mushrooms that grow in North America.
good to know that details exist somewhere…else. so, why post it here, when it is just theoretical (a name only) on MO?
BTW, love the tag team, guys. so cute.
nope I don’t use ebird. but in the days of Audubon, there woulda been a specimen to back it up, right along with that illustration.
Gosh, faith based biology? So trendy. But how reliable as real data?
I suppose w/out documentation you can’t get any ID argument either.
I thought the POINT of MO was to have the data right here and available for all, and in a best case scenario, fully documented. Not just a macro photo, either…
If specimens exist, why not say so?
“no photo, no specimen, no sighting.”
Have you used ebird? Those people are neither gunning down nor photographing every one the species they see on a day of birding.
That’s not how this works.
Mostly… Just another feature of MO that people can use. However for this entry a specimen is available (NS1039) as well as a photo.
14 of the Phaeocollybia can be seen here:
please add photos to your sightings. otherwise, this is just an unsubstantiated species list.
I especially look forward to seeing those 17 confirmed species of Phaeocollybia. ;)
Sounds like Humboldt is having a case of when bad years…go good. Indeed, when there is no rain, the mushrooms standing in the field don’t get beat up by rain.
Of course, compared to the rest of CA, even with only two hundred plus species in the field, Humboldt is having a great year. But maybe not compared to a great year in Humboldt, from a long time resident’s perspective.
I look forward to reading the eventual HBMS Fair species list, and seeing the photos.
Anywhere in the PNW is better than central CA, this year.
Created: 2013-11-16 22:16:04 EST (-0500)
Last modified: 2015-06-15 15:19:03 EDT (-0400)
Viewed: 102 times, last viewed: 2017-11-11 14:48:31 EST (-0500)