|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||6.42||1||(jason)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
In the end, all image votes are ever used for is ranking search results. So judge based on that criteria: how high up would you like to see this photo? I might go with “great” on a micrograph where the features it shows are critical and well-displayed.
Ideally we’ll eventually allow additional tags, such as “micrograph”. Then one could in principle search for just the best micrographs for a species, then it wouldn’t matter if the species happens to be really photogenic so that the distant in situ shots totally push the more interesting shots off the page.
And then we could document variation in such characters better, too! I don’t know that all L. hallii have such well-developed hairs. It’s relatively rare, so I don’t have a good feel for the variation yet.
Not many pics of this important trait out there. So do I vote “useful” or “great”? Seems like both apply.
Created: 2009-06-15 15:13:36 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2009-06-15 15:13:36 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 209 times, last viewed: 2016-10-27 07:31:26 PDT (-0700)