|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||10.75||2||(myxomop,firstname.lastname@example.org)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
I greatly appreciate the interactive part of MO and I have always stressed that. The only problem I can see that it is built in as a Ludo game and that it breaks the principle rule of herbarium practices, where nobody is allowed to change the fungus name on the herbarium label by simply replacing it with something like “Amanita farinosa”. In the normal herbarium world, annotation labels have been invented for the ID changes and it would be great if MO could follow that example. Implementing annotation labels and annotation rules in MO would not change the MO built in functionality, but it would elevate MO from the social game sphere into a more professional level.
As for the MyCoPortal suggestion, we have something around 150 our collections posted there and I wish we could get all our collections there, regardless if they have any images going with them or not. But our collections have been given to the UBC herbarium and it’s up the the UBC herbarium to make necessary agreements with the MyCoPortal. I have been pushing the UBC people to get their herbarium collections to MyCoPortal, if not the whole one, than at least our collections. (We have donated over 6,000 fungal collection packets to the UBC herbarium and only ca. 15% would have some photos or drawing going with them; I don’t count Oluna’s annotation notes and drawings on the labels.) Mind you, your image-less observations would also fit to the MyCoPortal better than to the Mushroom Observer, since you don’t need the MO built in functionality for them. Adolf
and MO views observations as observations.
End of story.
…but wit also helps.
We know your perspective.
It is high time for you to acknowledge that what you call a “fault” in MO is built in functionality.
Comparisons to communism are overwrought.
When I lived under the communist rule, only the “constructive criticism” was allowed. However, the problem was that only the communists themselves were able to tell the “constructive criticism” from the “damaging type of negativity” and the rest of us had to keep our mouths shut.
There is a fault in MO
1) that users can post MO observations without any images and
2) that other users can change the other users’ MO observation names willy-nilly.
How can you convince me that this particular Christian’s observation is indeed Rhodocybe nuciolens (Murrill) Singer and not Amanita farinosa auctores?
I view MO observations as “virtual” herbarium specimens, but in the actual herbarium:
1) Nobody would be allowed to file a sheet without any specimen, except in the rare cases when the sheet would contain some important pertinent information going with that particular non-existent collection, e.g. with the reference to the collection deposited elsewhere in another herbarium, etc.
2) Nobody would be allowed to change the herbarium specimen name that is on the original specimen label, and any suggestions would be made on the annotation labels.
Herbarium annotation labels would have the proposed name, date, the name of the annotation label author, and (preferably, but not necessarily) the reason’s for the name change.
The problem is that MO does not follow the well established herbarium practices. MO actually does not know what the “herbarium” is. Whenever I type “herbarium” in MO Notes or Comments, it’s marked as a spelling mistake and “her barium” is suggested instead of it.
But I am beating a dead horse again.
P.S. Nathan, I hope that you will take this type of negativity as constructive criticism and implement my suggestions. (I have several more, if you will be willing to listen.) I have been calling for them since I started to use MO. I was a herbarium curator for almost 15 years of of my professional career and I recognize all the marvelous features MO has. I also understand why many fungal herbarium curators turn their back to MO and consider it to be a Ludo game.
Thank you, Danny.
As stated on the introduction page, the purpose of Mushroom Observer is “to record observations about mushrooms, help people identify mushrooms they aren’t familiar with, and expand the community around the scientific exploration of mushrooms”.
Please consider this whenever you take an action on the site. This conversation was brought to my attention and I have deleted comments in this thread that I don’t consider to be consistent with any of these purposes. The type of negativity previously expressed here is damaging our community far more than the occasional post that lacks an image.
Please think before you hit ‘Create’.
capable, learned mycologists are both here and not here. their reasons for doing either are not necessarily aligned with this recent campaign against non-photographic data. on the contrary, the tone of these conversations is actively sending long-time members packing. all three of you write these broken record comments in what appears to be complete ignorance of the site’s stated policies regarding the optional nature of images. i look forward to hearing absolutely no more of this conversation when a filter is implemented to give users the option of hiding observations without photography. it cannot come sooner.
Created: 2014-11-30 19:32:15 CET (+0100)
Last modified: 2014-12-15 01:09:49 CET (+0100)
Viewed: 171 times, last viewed: 2016-10-27 04:27:37 CEST (+0200)