|I’d Call It That||3.0||9.53||2||(nathan,Noah)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
I am not voting doubtful because I doubt Christian’s identification skills, but because I do not think this observation shows Auriscalpium vulgare and thus should not be one of the first observations shown when someone looks at A. vulgare observations. Yes, I just confirmed this to be still true for imageless observations.
If this was changed so that these observations defaulted to lowest confidence level I would not be so inclined to vote on them (Especially imageless observations with no specimens). Also an optional/toggable filter to prevent these observations from becoming pages worth of spam would be nice.
Edit: Also, removing such observations (Even making it optional) from the occurrence map would be nice. Obs 190922 is still on this occurrence map for example.
Edit 2: I know I said this before, but upon watching the video of the talk Nathan gave that Adolf linked I feel that many of the things Nathan touched concerning names and data he could gets lots of good ideas for improving by looking at how bugguide manages their data. :)
“Observations are about the facts”
I just read the location for this. How is the Sierra Nevada = Santa Cruz County?
By calling a Sierra collection part of a “Mushrooms of Santa Cruz County” list, does that magically make it sponsored-DNA-analysis eligible for your upcoming book?
Not just non-data, but erroneus data.
A post w/out a photo or a specimen is indeed content free.
This is indeed becoming too surreal. Perhaps everyone should just take a time out.
more insults from Adolf
I said, “in a GOOD herbarium”.
nor true for you to continue calling these observations data-free. Plenty of people will and have cited lists of observations without images.
Also, Adolf, you are not the arbiter of what is proper use of MO. You would do well to stop acting that way.
As for suggesting that I spend more time in an herbarium, I spend lots of time in an herbarium.
I have no problem with them appearing here. I was not aware of how those obsies were treated by MO. Thank you for the clarification.
As to impoliteness, hopefully that standard is enforced regardless of the reason why.
It is not about the ability of the poster, but the verification of the data. MO is fabulous when all of the data points are in place. No one is going to cite a list in a publication!
Poof! I am now letting it go.
Here’s to good science and good manners on MO.
If yes, I meant that Christian does not know how to use this site PROPERLY. For cataloging our collections, I use Excel with fields that mirror the UBC mycological herbarium database. We have something between 6,000 – 7,000 collections and I have some “auxiliary” material (photos, microphotos and Oluna drawings) for about one fifth of those collections. I post photos etc. on Mushroom Observer and I convinced the UBC collection managers to include the MO observation number into their database. They laughed when I suggested that (“you are weird to use MO for something like this”), but they did it.
I was inspired by Nathan’s presentation on the 2011 MSA meeting
and I saw that Nathan had a great vision when he developed MO. There is something in MO what is the core of a wonderful herbarium management system of a new generation. However, Nathan did not realize that any observations posted in MO should be supported with a REAL herbarium specimen, in order to to make MO useful for the mycofloristics projects. Never mind, with only less than 17% of MO observations, this site is full of useless garbage and this + special idiosyncrasies of MO (deprecation, naming rules, changing the MO observation names nilly willy, etc.), and because of this, majority of mycologists involved in the mycofloristic project would ignore it. Nathan, you may remember that I suggested to you that you should volunteer in some good mycological herbarium for a week, to realize what can be improved in MO. I think that Christian too would profit from something like that.
Please let it go and stop making impolite comments about perfectly reasonable ways to use MO.
I assume Debbie was referencing comment 99332. It would be nice if people actually made references like this when they talk about something on the site. Jason implemented a very nice feature for doing this which you can read about here.
It is fine if you want to vote imageless observations as “Could Be”, but voting them as “Doubtful” seems inappropriate to me. Personally I generally don’t bother to vote on these since I usually have no opinion since there is usually very little evidence to support the id. In this particular case, because I know and trust Christian and I feel others have voted inappropriate, I am voting “I’d Call It That”. Note that imageless observations are already shown last on name pages, so you don’t have to worry about them “cluttering up” those pages. As far as search goes, that is strictly chronological by default, so your votes make no difference.
We all know (webmasters more than anyone) how Adolf feels on this subject. Apparently, Debbie, too. For my part I respect their position. They make compelling arguments. And in their vision, MO would still be a fine place to meet and discuss mushrooms and do citizen and professional science.
But there are other opinions on the subject which I respect equally. Instead of taking it out on each other, please take it out on Nathan and me. We’re used to it. And, frankly, there are things we could and should (in my opinion) do to alleviate the tension between the two sides of this argument.
There’s absolutely no reason we can’t use the site both ways!
But right now we can barely keep the darned site running, let alone work on the features which will, for example, allow the Adolfs and Debbies out there to filter out these “low-information” observations.
Please let’s try to keep it polite. Patience, folks, patience!
I definitely don’t know how to use this site. That is clearly evidenced the facts, which Adolf perceives with exceptional clarity.
but the doing.
if you just are making a list, there are better places to do so. if you want to contribute to the whole, do the entire job: a searchable visual confirmable database. THAT is what makes MO valuable!!!
it’s not that hard, the photos don’t need to be great art, just identifiable, and obviously, you have scads of time on your hands, Mr. Schwarz.
I will keep voting this shit down, without a photo for confirmation. That was a great suggestion by Byrain, that I will continue to follow up on.
Y’all can follow your own consciences, wherever they lead you.
I found it sad that Christian Schwarz, who introduced me to the Mushroom Observer, does not know how to use it. Adolf
You don’t have to!
can’t vote positively for it.
Created: 2014-11-30 10:38:15 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2014-11-30 20:08:37 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 134 times, last viewed: 2017-06-19 08:30:15 PDT (-0700)