|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
|Promising||2.0||7.79||2||(The Polish Hammer,christopher hodge)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||16.08||3||(myxomop,amanitarita,Mycowalt)|
|As If!||-3.0||9.53||2||(Alan Rockefeller,christopher hodge)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||5.73||1||(Alan Rockefeller)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
In a conversation elsewhere expressed that he still agrees that imageless observations are useful. A suggestion of being able to filter searches so you can screen out observations without images was made, as well as perhaps being able to search for only vouchered observations. That way if you don’t like imageless observations, you can avoid them when looking up a species. I have no technical experience with programming and my understanding of the resolution may not be correct as I can’t speak for Joe, Jason, Nathan, or anyone else who helps run this site.
We are indeed very lucky to have people donate their time and expertise to help the mycological community in our pursuit of knowledge. And they don’t even spam us asking for financial donations, though they certianly could use all they can get.
I have always been grateful to Nathan, Jason, Joe Cohen and everyone else that has contributed to MO including Noah and Christian for the wealth of information they have shared and their inspiring photos.
I just meant as far as design decisions go, its easy for a developer to include functionality where they either did not intend for it at all or where they did not foresee all the possible repercussions. The point is that the current state of the site does not mean that is either the best way to do something or that it was necessarily the original intent.
This entire conversation has spiraled entirely out of control in the worst possible ways, but that does not mean it should be shoved under the rug. My goal with all of this was to push the issue to the forefront so that we could all come up with an reasonable compromise that would satisfy everyone. While the former succeeded, the latter failed miserably and has only caused pointless strife. Maybe there isn’t very much that can be done, some rather avoid offending at all possible costs even if it means stifling honesty and others rather throw the online equivalent of an tantrum or just shove their head under the sand.
I guess the result is what the community puts into it, you can’t all rely on someone else to fix your problems. If you aren’t happy with MO then do what you can to make it better.
we should all be grateful to Nathan for creating this great site, where we all have a voice and where, with a little digging, we can find marvelous obsies from which to learn and grow and amaze our senses.
Perhaps, despite all of our righteous annoyance, our attention should move away from the inevitable shit here to the coprophilic fungi?! ;)
You know, focus on the positive. ;)
Go Warriors! Ooops, wrong call. Again.
I don’t think you can put this all on Nathan for not envisioning how this would turn out…
Nathan Wilson designed MO to support imageless observations. If you want to complain about them, do that on another site.
those are Jean Luc’s words!
But you can’t read this … you are already gone. Or so you say.
If the world must be perfectly manicured for you to be in it … it’s gonna be a haaaaaard life.
1. Indeed, I shall be leaving!
2. To use your words: “Fuck ’em!”
please show me a well-respected, ground-changing published mycology paper that cites unsubstantiated data to draw its conclusions? The 2001 Holliday paper on orgasmic stinkhorns was one such work, without a single citation for any statement made. That one got blown outta the water.
if you can’t clearly show how you made an ID, then the ID is suspect. a photo is bare minimum. and even then, as we know, IDs can still be wrong.
and what happens when we find more cryptic species, or discover that our basis for ID is wrong? how does one correct a data free obsie?
as long as data-free obsies are deprecated in value, and the MO community quickly takes care of that problem, post away. frankly, they would be better in some tabulated list rather than cluttering up our screens.
garbage in, garbage out.
here’s the way MO currently works: you can post anything you like! that goes for everyone, not just you. but the MO community can then comment upon that posting, or downgrade an observation, based on presented data (in this case, nothing). if you don’t like that model, post elsewhere! or just gracefully ignore the inevitable flack that comes your way. if you have the strength of your convictions, fuck ’em! full steam ahead! let that flack roll offa your back like water to a duck. but please, no whining. this is a community of mushroom observers, not your personal fan club. same standards for everyone.
if “proving” range extensions is your goal, then a data free obsie is absolutely the wrong way to go.
let’s take Chrysomphalina as an example of some of your (“Bratty Duo”*) data free obsies. From macro morph alone, it is unclear that we can really tell them apart in hand, every time. They are hardly common mushrooms to most, altho they do get found regularly by dedicated hunters. There seems to be quite a bit of macro-morpho overlap between the two currently known species. But you and Noah are so confidant of your amazing, completely infallible ID abilities that you simply cannot make a mistake, and therefore, your photo free obsies should be taken on faith.
And if you don’t understand that, well, maybe you should go back to school.
- “Bratty Duo”: new name for two remaining members of former self-styled “Brat Pack” once they lost the inimitable Erin Blanchard.
“Those look at trends rather than hard numbers though, and anything unusual must be proven. Writing down a name of a rarely seen bird is not automatically accepted as hard data!”
This is literally exactly what I have said every time we’ve had this argument*.
You’re finally getting it!
From my post in 2014:
“People often respond by asking “Well then, what if I report rare mushroom species X from California that has never been seen there before, but don’t have a photo or specimen?”
Well, the answer is that the data would be discounted by most everyone.
However, if you report a common mushroom species Y that is well known to occur in California without a photo or specimen, then yes, your data would likely be used for research."
- (argument in a generous sense)
Jean Luc! My fave Enterprise Captain!
And here we all thought that you had quit this site, Christian! Not.
Addicting, ain’t it? ;)
As I have said before, we all appreciate it when you contribute here in a positive, concrete way.
This is not a birder’s phenology database tho, where killing of birds is no longer an accepted method, and photographing birds is problematic and expensive for the right equipment. Lots of faith based birding, and loosey goosey (so to speak) data.
But so what? Birding is often a competitive sport, and fish stories are part of the charm.
When they are censusing those reintroduced condors though, you bettah believe they back it up with hard evidence.
I was a former Chapter Prez for Audubon (when I was your age now, as a matter of fact) and have participated in many a Xmas count. Those look at trends rather than hard numbers though, and anything unusual must be proven. Writing down a name of a rarely seen bird is not automatically accepted as hard data!
In mycology, we expect back-up data on obsies. We are still in our myco-infancy here. Why not be a good example, and keep that bar high, and make a far more valuable database for future mycologists?
Thing is, we know you are more than capable. So we have to ask, why not?
No worries, rhetorical question.
this species is commonly collected on Phil’s property and it is already vouchered and I do believe the DNA has been run, showing that is is not G. castaneus.
Phil does not haves a camera (!) and doesn’t take photos.
so, anecdotally, I know this exists, I have personally seen it and even held it in my hand, but as a useable database for science, an imageless obsie is far from ideal.
I really don’t understand why folks who should and do know better don’t take the time to produce an obsie that is more useful to everyone and esp. to scientists down the line who are looking for distribution data, not theoretical observations.
let’s raise the bar, not lower it for the LCD. Even newbies should have something to aspire to.
if you are simply too busy to do it right, don’t do it at all. or save your MO obsie efforts for ones that have real benefit. It is unrealistic to expect any unsubstantiated obsie to be taken on faith. that’s not science, that’s hero worship.
Here is a data-ful obsie by Christian from the same site:
You could could ask Phil if he has any pics. If you can’t find the time, I’ll ask him next year at the FFSC fair. He might even have a specimen saved. I can appreciate this info because a Gyroporus species does occur under oaks I California, but is rarely found and even less rarely reported. Imageless observations are no gold standard, but in a world lacking so much data on mushroom fruitings, I’ll take what I can get.
Nathan Wislson designed the site to allow imageless observations. Hopefully there is a fix coming to make both sides imageless observation argument happy though.
is an embarrassment to our community.
no data, no science.
Either this is as useful as any other imageless observation as one posted by Christian or this is as useless. It can be confirmed independently just as easily and that is the important part to remember when collecting scientific data.
Great example of cliquey MO can be…
of the original name proposal suggests doubt and hence a request for an ID. there is nothing in the OP’s bio to suggest that they should unequivocally be taken at their word. i would consider this a good example of when to err on the side of caution and require a photo for calling it anything but Imageless or Boletaceae.
alas, it does not.
latest news is that our Western G. castaneus (sic) is a cryptic species and not castaneus at all. Which makes perfect sense, since that would be quite a disparate range, not to mention wrong host tree.
why not take a photo the next time this thing pops up at Phil’s house?
Created: 2014-10-24 14:10:08 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2016-06-20 16:39:39 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 229 times, last viewed: 2017-09-21 20:03:13 PDT (-0700)