Observation 185088: Clitocybe odora var. pacifica Kauffman
When: 2014-10-18
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

-69% (7)
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
Please don’t strawman me
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2016-07-29 08:35:30 PDT (-0700)

It’s an argument why what you said was wrong. Not an argument about my personal decisions.

(And who says I don’t know how to use Excel?)

Now, regarding my personal decisions:

1. True!
2. Mostly false. Easier for me, but harder for everyone else on the planet, because the observations wouldn’t be part of the community’s database.
3. Debatably false. You’re just restating your position on the matter we’ve been arguing about.
4. Contradicts (2), and doesn’t support your point. You can’t complain about records being simultaneously too inaccessible and too public. If I make them equally accessible elsewhere, I should expect equal criticism from accessors. And I don’t mind constructive criticism, although I do mind destructive criticism.

That is not an argument to not use the best tool for the job.
By: Byrain
2016-07-29 08:18:55 PDT (-0700)

Learn to use excel.

1. Making these records would be a lot faster.
2. Gaining useful data from these records would be a lot easier.
3. It would improve the quality of MO.
4. You would not have to deal with constructive criticism anymore.

Byrain
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2016-07-29 08:15:28 PDT (-0700)

Actually, the people who created MO explicitly allowed imageless observations. So yes, these observations were designed for it.

Adolf had the best suggestion.
By: Byrain
2016-07-29 07:54:39 PDT (-0700)

Use excel, its designed for this sort of thing.

These observations aren’t designed for it.

Okay, I don’t pay attention…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2016-07-29 03:51:02 PDT (-0700)

to the MO rating system. I think the last time I checked my own status was about two years ago. But I admit, failing to award an imageless/virtulally-informationless observation (nothing beyond name/location/author) is tantamount to a the asterisk I suggested.

So the system is designed to treat such observations appropriately.

Putting an extra black mark on imageless observations
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2016-07-28 09:10:54 PDT (-0700)

would imply that the voting system, which is the core of MO, doesn’t work. It assigns a confidence level to names. That’s already taken care of.

Besides, imageless observations are already plainly distinguished by lacking a thumbnail.

It’s only “eltitist”
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2016-07-28 07:17:31 PDT (-0700)

if the author is rewarded in some way.
You get the smallest number of contributor points for observations like these, so I’m going to disagree with you.

I think the proposed identity in this observation…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2016-07-27 20:32:31 PDT (-0700)

would be better off with an asterisk (*) than with a fight to the death against Imageless.

By “asterisk” I mean, an observation supported by only the date, location, and reputation of the observer, but which provides potentially useful information about the occurrence of the relevant entity. That is, “I’d call it that *”. No voting/proposing altenatives (which is ridiculous for an observation like this one).

I’ts essentially an elitist system. But at least here on MO there is a way to quantify the reliability of the observation author, and perhaps deny access to such an option based upon the rating.

Created: 2014-10-22 18:55:28 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2016-07-29 10:41:40 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 130 times, last viewed: 2016-10-28 13:37:14 PDT (-0700)
Show Log