This is classified a polypore. The photo should be sharper, but the fronds look fibrous.
|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||6.01||1||(MLivezey)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
I know of at least two of your images (L. indigo & R. palmatus) that have been picked up by Wikipedia. Did the users follow the guidelines of Creative Commons 3.0? Are other of your images in use on Wikipedia or other places?
Nathan – is it worth trying to document the instances when an image is borrowed within the guidelines of Creative Commons 3.0 and when they are not? I was thinking of a list that MO users could add to when they are aware of progress or lack thereof on the use of CC3..,
When people ask me if they can use an image, I usually tell them that the easiest way to comply with the Creative Commons 3.0 license is to link or cite the observation number in a footnote or end note. For example: mushroomobserver.org/79775
I think it would be best to include an explicit link to the original observation in the notes section of any observation which retouches another observation.
Edit* I also think the location and date should reference the mushroom rather than the secondary observation of the mushroom.
and no offense is taken – at all. Your comments are appropriate and appreciated. We all want MO to run right and be a source of knowledge for us and a growing community of curious. I just loved the photos that Gerhard put up and I wanted a chance to suggest that cropping and contrast enhancement can be a great aid to anyone who puts photos up. I am of course a bit chagrinned by all the attention, but better me than someone who is doing it below board, so to speak. I don’t think Gerhard ever got a chance to look at these, but I will pull them down now anyway. He did answer my question on another post. Don’t worry O&A, I won’t retouch yours. Thanks Deb, for your positive comments.
I apologize for accusing Martin of stealing. I have been working on a review of Mushroom Observer from the point of view of an old herbarium rat and I have come to the conclusion that Mushroom Observer is a nice “virtual herbarium” combined with competitive aspects of a Monopoly game. If you look at the Contributors list, you will see that there is a fierce fight between us and Martin, and we interpreted (maybe mistakenly) Martin’s re-posting other people’s observations as an attempt to get ahead of us. That’s OK with us, unless he starts to re-post our own observations in order to get ahead of us. Martin, don’t dare to do that! Adolf
Hey Martin, great fungal find. It woulda been a BAMS shroom of the day if it had been sharper! Amazing color anyway.
One of the great beauties of MO is the file sharing aspect, but surprise! it is an imperfect world. I also have a non-commercial license, but really, if someone is unscrupulous they will do what they will, anyway.
Martin is not unscrupulous.
MO is not just a great science site but a social site too, and those lines are gonna blur sometimes.
Just like for our taxonomic changes, we gotta be flexible and roll with the punches. We are all just making this up as we go along, but I gotta say looks to me as though we are mostly doing a fine job here; there are plenty of wheat kernels amongst the chaff, if you just take the time to sift for ’em.
is a category that is supposed to protect the property of the copyright holder here (and elsewhere). I opted for this category later in my postings because those who re-purposed my earlier images DID NOT tell me what they had done. That is really a pity.
Actually, it is explicitly not called “stealing from MO”. The Creative Commons licenses supported by MO explicitly allow you to download them and do whatever you want to them as long as you maintain attribution (“BY”) and provide the resulting images under the same license (“SHARE-ALIKE”). I also think it is a good idea to let the original author know what you’ve done and describe what you did wherever you publish the results.
My concern in this case is that the images are wrongly named and could cause confusion to partner websites. For example, if EOL’s automated harvesting system comes to MO and grabs images for Terana caerulea (as it soon would based on some new work I’m doing that results in http://mushroomobserver.org/name/eol_for_taxon/21457), it would have gotten these Stropharia images which would be wrong. It’s certainly not the end of the world, but I think there are better ways to share what you’ve done with Gerhard. Sorry to rain on the parade. I’ve voted ‘Could Be’ on this observation until the Stropharia images have been removed.
Martin, don’t touch or retouch our photos. They are not sharp for purpose! O+A
You are right. I am trying to surprise Gerhard with my new skill of downloading full resolution photos from MO. It’s called stealing from MO; these are his photos. But I don’t plan to make a habit of it, and I thought a little cropping and contrast enhancement might give Gerhard a cheap thrill. As I said in my comment below, I will pull the photos when my ‘trick’ is complete…,shhh.
you’ve got some extra photos in here.
Can this and other resupinate fungi be easily propagated in a petri dish?
If you want to know how I got the photos on the right, respond; I will take them down and let you know…,
Created: 2011-10-18 02:03:40 BST (+0100)
Last modified: 2012-05-01 14:38:18 BST (+0100)
Viewed: 324 times, last viewed: 2017-10-15 20:50:11 BST (+0100)