Species Lists

Please login to propose your own names and vote on existing names.

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
Point well taken.
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2013-11-28 01:38:41 GMT (+0000)
review process
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2013-11-28 01:06:14 GMT (+0000)

Well, the answer is you don’t know. And if that’s the case, AND it’s not a crazy/contentious/important/range-extending record, what’s your reason for voting on it?

I don’t mean that in an aggressive way. There are many cases where I have no idea (or even have a pretty strong suspicion that an observation is misidentified) but if it it is a group I have no particular strength in, or I don’t bring new information to the table, or it’s from Afghanistan, I just don’t vote. Or I add a comment to ask the user how the identification was reached.

Not contentious
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2013-11-28 00:27:18 GMT (+0000)

Just expressing that without seeing it, how do I know? As a one time visitor to Calif. I have only seen this species once. I do trust your ID’s of course.

I am reminded of that daily
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2013-11-28 00:02:02 GMT (+0000)

Here on MO (for better and for worse). This gets into a larger conversation about data vouching, but that will happen elsewhere.

Walt – any reason you think this record is contentious?

Agreed, but
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-11-27 22:40:11 GMT (+0000)

bear in mind, as much as the uploader has the right to upload observations without images, everyone else maintains the right to their own opinion on the integrity and believability of the word of the collector, and can vote accordingly.

Okay that makes sense, but…
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2013-11-27 21:53:02 GMT (+0000)

…then this observation shouldn’t have been given that tag.

It was intentionally imageless (or more accurately, it was intentionally uploaded, but did not come with an image).

Unless you are arguing that one of the most common, widely distributed and easily identified mushrooms in California is “too contentious a record”

And once you’ve completed this search,
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-11-27 21:42:59 GMT (+0000)

you’re faced with dozens of observations without images.

With the Imageless tag, you can immediately tell the difference between the intentional and the extraneous. Those called Imageless (by consensus) are either imageless by mistake or the taxon proposed constitutes too contentious a record to be taken on sheer faith. The rest are left alone.

Without the Imageless tag, they all look the same.

In a perfect world, all observations agreed upon as meeting the Imageless and Duplicate naming criteria would be deleted. Since that doesn’t happen, this is how we’ve managed to segregate them from the rest of the site.

No, I understand
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2013-11-27 20:55:03 GMT (+0000)

the value of searching by images that have images vs. not, but perhaps instead of calling it a useless tag, I think it’s a time-wasting tag.

I believe Jason and Nathan are trying to make a simple addition to advanced search in which users can specify “Image” or “No Image”. This data is already available to the MO search database.

So… unless you JUST CAN’T WAIT! It seems… useless…

By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-11-27 20:49:32 GMT (+0000)

Imageless is not useless. It is, unfortunately, often misapplied. Re-read the Imageless name page if you’re unsure of the value of this name.

Image Not Required
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2013-11-27 20:49:28 GMT (+0000)

But they sure are useful. Imageless does serve a purpose in case the poster forgot to add the image…

Walt, Debbie, whoever else
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2013-11-27 20:46:04 GMT (+0000)

NOTE: IMAGELESS is a useless tag. MO observations do not require an image.
Please keep this in mind.

Created: 2013-11-25 19:12:01 GMT (+0000)
Last modified: 2013-11-28 01:38:09 GMT (+0000)
Viewed: 676 times, last viewed: 2019-06-15 17:37:16 BST (+0100)
Show Log