|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||5.69||1||(Alan Rockefeller)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
You can judge the size from added photos. I am trying to use MO for documenting our herbarium specimens. It works quite well until I get in conflict with the Mushroom Observer Rules Of Naming. I posted this particular observation as "Amanita pachycolea D.E. Stuntz OC2150404-AP ", but I am not allowed to mention the collection number in the MO Observation name. By labeling it Amanita pachycolea, this observation gets lost among 95 observations of the same name. When you renamed the observation to Amanita sect. Vaginatae sensu Zhu L. Yang, I have to look for the documentation of our specimen among 917 MO observations. That’s still better
than to file it among 1240 MO observations of “Amanita Pers.” Never mind, it’s all my fault, since I am using MO the way it was not meant to be used.
Hello, Adolf and Oluna.
This is a very pretty species. Can you tell us anything about the size?
Created: 2015-04-10 18:02:23 MDT (-0600)
Last modified: 2015-10-27 13:29:25 MDT (-0600)
Viewed: 154 times, last viewed: 2016-10-20 15:15:40 MDT (-0600)