Suggestion for Plant Files

This is something I would find very helpful, and I'm guessing maybe it would help others, too. I do realize everyone is very busy. Just trying to get my wishlist in.

In Plant Files, when I expand a photo the caption at the top shows the username of the person who posted the pic along with the date and time it was posted. I would find it incredibly helpful if the user's location were added to that caption (or otherwise displayed). I can't begin to tell you how often I find myself wondering as to the location and having to click on the username to get that information. Yes, I can obtain the information in this manner, but it get's to be a bit much when I need to know the location information for several pics.

I was thinking this might be a good task for those times when the developers find themselves sitting around bored with nothing to do. ;-)

I agree with your interest in knowing the location of the photo. I don't agree that your suggestion would be the best way to provide that information.

All too often, the location of the photos have nothing to do with where the submitter lives/gardens. Therefore: the best answer is to have the submitter note on the text with the photo where the photo was taken, and the date.

This is the information I provide with the photos I contribute to PlantFiles.

The administrators are in the best position to see that this information is provided, since they can limit acceptance of images to those that meet that minimum standard.

Hi ViburnumValley,

I do realize that there is no guarantee that a particular PlantFiles pic was taken in the submitter's stated home area, but I use the submitter's area because that is the only information available to me, and I figure it is likely correct more often than not. Like you, I also label the pictures I submit to PlantFiles, including (in most cases) not only the location where the pic was taken but also the date or season when taken.

While it would be great if everyone would label their PlantFiles photo submissions in this manner, I'm skeptical as to the feasibility of trying to legislate user cooperation. Given the overall value of PlantFile photos to the site, I'm even more skeptical that Admin would want to reject submissions for lack of a label.

I asked for the submitter's location to be added to the existing label only because it makes use of information which already exists and should be a relatively simple change that would require minimal developer effort. That said, either method works for me.

I DO really appreciate it when people label their Plant File pics as to location. (I was just looking at a plant, happened to run across one that was labeled thusly, and realized how much I really do like that - even though I'm still skeptical about the chances of getting people to cooperate.)

I'd like to see plants properly ID'ed but that won't happen as long as some submitters insist they are correct.

And it won't happen while even large, well established nurseries, continue to sell plants with the wrong labels, which lead people who buy them to believe the names are correct.

I've bought and grown clematis with a tag saying 'Venosa Violacea' from three different places and all were wrong. None were even purple. I knew they were wrong when I saw the blooms but anyone who never grew them and didn't investigate them, would have no way of knowing the label was wrong.

It would be a more perfect world if every label and every photo was correct...but it's not so.

When I've pointed out errors at nurseries the employees shrug their shoulders.

I love the date of each photo so I can judge when my plant will bloom. The location is a huge help as well.

You are correct on that Pirl. Yet when you show someone on DG that they are incorrect, they still insist on their original assessment because they bought the "incorrectly named" plant at a nursery and by God they are going to stick to their guns.

Sometimes it's just the volume of photos that helps us determine what we really have. The more contributions to PlantFiles, the better.

Maybe more might help but it also may overwhelm the browser/user. I never use PF unless they pop up near the top in a Google search. There should be a minimum standard look to the files but some are not that good.

Many of the old photos were taken with older digital cameras so they won't be as good as anything that can be captured now. I just appreciate the photos and the efforts made by folks so long ago who tried to be helpful to all of us.

As far as errors you have found - did you notify DG of the errors?

Ah, I guess any excuse is better than no excuse. Even with old equipment, there are people who can take wonderful pictures.

Yes, I did notify DG but the person who posted the picture is on the admin staff and stuck to her guns. What can you do...

It's true that el cheapo old cameras were capable of great photos but the el cheapo digitals were blurry regardless of how good the photographer was. Attached is a collage showing the really cheap digital results compared to the better camera.

Oh, dear. Now that is a problem that probably won't be rectified.

I appreciate all of the photos and the people who take the time to post them. To criticize them misses the point. Not everyone is a skilled photographer, nor can everyone afford the best equipment. They are gifts freely given, gifts which allow us to glimpse plants we may never own in places we may never visit, gifts which allow us to see what a plant really looks like before we buy it.

It's easy enough to look past those pics which don't meet our needs. Likewise, as pirl mentioned earlier, I find that a large enough group of photos, much like any large group of data, allows me to easily screen out the anomalous among them.

You should get better pictures with a more expensive camera but that isn't always true. To compare the two pictures side by side doesn't tell me much about the camera or the settings when the pictures were taken. Were these shot the same day and time? Same settings? Does an expensive camera make everyone a professional shooter? National Geographic had one of their photographers do an article where the only camera they had was a smart phone and some of those pictures that were published were very good.

It's hard to look past dark, blurry, blown out, and/or poorly composed photos, and now sideways and upside down pictures from smart phones and tablets. It seems a waste of time to click on some of these photos at times. The worst are the very small pictures posted that when clicked on are no bigger than the thumbprint. I remember a picture (not on DG but another website) where the person took a picture of a houseplant on a rocking chair in the middle of their driveway and wanted to know what the plant was. What plant? Oh, on the chair in the middle of the driveway? In a small picture as well.