Changes to the 'Files

It came up for me when I typed in daylily san antonio firecracker (no quote marks) here: http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/search/results.php?gralcom=Daylily%20San%20Antonio%20Firecracker - dropping off the quote marks isn't a change - it's always balked at those.

Okay I just played around and General search seems to be working just fine. I went to Advanced and tried it with several different scenarios, all came up fine. I even played around with the colors of blooms by putting in crape myrtle and checked all pink and purple and got lots of pretty pictures in my color preference, which is really a neat feature.

I do agree I'd prefer have things in alpha order than in popularity order, or maybe the option to view either way.☺ I can get used to the photos the way they are, but I still enjoyed seeing them all in one grid, than the slide show. I still get a mild jump after moving the slide to next photo.

I have updated to Windows 10 now, and use Google Chrome as my browser. FYI

By the way Terry, thank you for relating our concerns to the tech team. I know your head must be spinning by now...LOL.

I'll keep playing around with it, so I can get used to it. And I'll check out some of the Advanced search features too.

This message was edited Aug 10, 2015 4:21 PM

so, no 'quotation marks' of any kind around the cultivars seems to work for me… only now plants with synonym names are not coming up (such as Dypsis orange crush yields no results while it used to come up under Dypsis pilulifera… though now the two palms are indeed different again as of a few weeks ago… but that is another story).

Another problem is when I make a misspelling in my searches (something I unfortunately do a lot), I used to get a list of possible alternative spellings (a GREAT bit of software and very useful)… seems to have been left off the new version as I can tweak a misspelling in a lot of different ways and none come up, nor any suggestions to an alternative spelling like there used to be. Is that going to be reinstated, or we just out of luck if we can't quite remember how to spell something?

This message was edited Aug 11, 2015 12:21 AM

Time to re-up my subscription after 7 or 8 years. Maybe someone should consult with "Dave" to see what made this such a super, wonderful site.
I still love you,Terry and Melody and all of the hard workers. The newest "umbrella" that is over all of you is blocking not just the sun but EVERYTHING.

Christi

Quotes around anything in your search has always thrown our system for a loop. If the search isn't looking at botanical synonyms, we should be able to fix that ASAP. And yes, there was a tool that sometimes suggested alternative spellings. Let me see if we can get that back.

Thank you for the feedback. My perspective on this goes back to 2001 when I joined DG. And every time we (under Dave's leadership and since) have changed things, there have been those who felt it was a drastic misstep. I've come to accept it as is simply part of the process of change. Some people hate change, regardless of whether they perceive the result to be an improvement or not.

And for those who aren't quite so dead-set against any/all change, everyone has an opinion. Some will see each change as an improvement, and some won't.

And with every change has always come a few blips and bobbles. It would be great if Beta testing uncovered every potential flaw, but the fact is, we're human. We pound around on the test version, and we think we've thought through everything it needs to do and ought to do, and inevitably, there are a few things we just simply overlooked or didn't think through. So please bear with us. The techs have worked really hard to make PlantFiles work and feel like the type of app you expect in 2015. Let's let them know we appreciate their efforts, even as we give them requests to fix and/or tweak certain things.

The changes make me sad and they make me feel really stupid. I do not know all that in-depth stuff about plants like cultivar and genus and stuff. I know the basics like if something is a melon or a bean. If I have the name of a plant and I need to know something about it I liked being able to type it into the box that used to be on the top of the PF page. It would then give me possible matches and I could look through them to find what I needed. The "improvements" are far beyond me and now I feel like an outsider.

I joined Davesgarden back in 2001 (back when it was free), also… and changes made have often been for the better… it's the changes in the last 2-3 years that have been the major problem (and perhaps not in your control, but rather those more 'market-oriented' that are seeking to make this a 'mega-look alike' site, as someone else put it, crammed full of pretty pictures, but with less emphasis on content). Perhaps the newer, younger users care less about content, and just want something to look at. ...Something that will look interesting on their smart phones and high def. tablets, but not something they will ever use to actually learn anything from or use in any intellectual way. These newer, younger viewers/users sometimes care less about communication (at least about ideas and facts… gossip and 'noise' are at an increase I would guess) and more about visuals, at least on a site like this. I see that in the marked decrease in participation on the forums, not just on this site, but on all plant sites… in fact, on many biological-related sites, as well. And perhaps that is the way of the future, sad as it might be.

That is still available via the general search. Or you can use the Advanced Search, plug in a common name (melon, bean, etc.) and the cultivar name (Stars and Stripes, Kentucky Blue, etc.)

We'll continue to hone and tweak the searches to give the optimal results. (But even now, it is pretty much the same as what we had before - what has been added is more capability to browse through various categories, and to see things a picture and a few details such as height, hardiness and sun requirements in the summary view.)

Well, I won't try to analyze or defend the direction the future is headed :-).

But what I can say is that those who manage this site (from our volunteer admins, Melody and me, and on up) have always viewed the existing, established community with the utmost respect. The impact of every change is considered before we proceed. But at the same time, websites are evolving in the way they look and function, and in the technology that makes them work. The changes we have made and are continuing to make will bring us into a more updated look (whether we each consider that to be better or worse, it's simply a matter of opinion and taste), and to make sure it will work well for mobile devices, something we didn't have to contend with when the site began.

I THINK I figured out where some of the confusion comes from. I have now figured out how to get where I want to go but its hard to explain online, so now I have the iPad next to my desk top. lol

When I first go to PFs I see plant search (which I was trying to use) but then I went to popular plants (Highlighted just below) there are pics of plants that you can click on or you can click on the drop down which has more choices ie beans, melons, peppers etc. Then click on how you want to do the search (I used Common Name). Then you can scroll down to see the different types. Simply click on the plant name to get specifics.

I think having the plant search option first makes it more confusing.

I imagine we'll figure it out sooner or later.

I was looking for Hale's Best Jumbo cantaloupe. I typed it into the box that appears at the top of the first page. I am assuming that is the general search you mention. It told me there were no results. But I did find the Hale's Jumbo melon. I found it by going down the page and clicking on the more general "melon" category and searching through each thing. The old way would have simply given me the closest thing I asked for and then the next closest and so on, and I had the option to look through each one to see if what I needed was there. This new system seems to require exact wording. Not an improvement for me. I much rather the old way it worked. I don't need it to be fancy and pretty. I am a gardener, not a stylist. I hope it gets better.

I bought five new plants home today and was able to search them all using the general search. It seems the tech team has worked very quickly to fix the issues that we had. I really do appreciate that, since I'm daily making updates to my journal.

I am very grateful to those that post lots of photos and comments about plants on this site. Sometimes a photo is the only way I can ID a new plant with no tag. Dave's garden and the community that supports it, to me anyway, are still the best gardening/plant information site on the web.

Palmbob, I can't even begin to tell you how many times your photos and your detailed comments have helped this succulent loving gal out. ☺

I wanted to add some photos of my Siberian irises. I normally just type in Siberian irises and then select no photos and use the cultivar to list McEwen, Borglum Etc. I can't take the time to scroll through thousands of entries. What happened?

The search in the upper right hand corner searches the whole site. When you're on the PlantFiles main page, scroll down just a bit to see the general search for PlantFiles. The old search was also pretty much an exact match - we've (sadly) never gotten our arms around a good "fuzzy logic" that guesses what you tried to type and returns results that might be what you meant.

If you type "siberian iris" and McEwen" in the general search (no quote marks), you should get the iris(es) that meet that criteria. Can you try that and see if you get what you're expecting?

I just want something that's user friendly. I don't think that's too much to ask since I'm a paying member. I see nothing that says, "General Search". Perhaps a link to that search engine would be nice for those of us who apparently are smart enough to figure out the new search engine. Asking for a more user friendly interface isn't being resistant to change. It's asking for it to be user friendly. I used to often refer people to the PF. No longer.

I tried searching for Pike Cantaloupe using Pike Cantaloupe, Pike Muskmelon, Cantaloupe Pike, and Muskmelon Pike. NEVER found it. I finally typed in Cantaloupe and got oodles of results, but I don't want to scroll through every entry to find the one I'm looking for. I have now found that the easiest, most efficient way to use PF is to type in my search criteria in Google, and then follow the link to PF.

What i DONT like is.... it cannot find ANYTHING !

Doesnt matter if it is advanced search or elementary
search or whatecer search, it doesnt locate it !

What it DOES do is pull up things that have nothing
whatsoever with what I asked fo. I entered corypanthus
no luck, corypantha, no dice. I does, however, find trade
lists, plant scout, & others for abelia and andromiscus.

I KNOW this plant is somewhere in the Database
somewhere, I saw it shortly before this latest chamge,
I cannot honestly call it an upgrade.

I think that's part of the problem. How it's discribed on here doesn't coinside with what what is seen on the page. I saw a pic for peppers and found the pepper section, but there needs to be a way to find the exact one your looking for. I found the one farmerdill was looking for but it started with an A. Don't know how I would have found it if it started with M.

Just beneath the header you'll see a big text field to enter your search. That is what we're referring to as the "general" search. The Advanced Search is in the shaded box on the right-hand side.

You are correct that the "general" search isn't pulling this up, but the advanced search does find it: http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/search/results.php?commo=cantaloupe&culti=pike

I've reported this issue to the lead tech; I'm not sure why the general search didn't find it when it is working for other similar searches.

Is it Corypantha or Coryphantha? I got these results when I searched for Coryphantha; http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/search/results.php?gralcom=Coryphantha

Also, see my note to StephanieTx above - if you are using the "Search Dave's Garden" box to launch your search, it will bring up all sorts of things that are not PlantFiles entries. When you're on the main PF page, beneath the header is a box titled "Plant Search" and that's where you can initiate a search for PF entries.

tried it both of those ways, plus
other ways incl singular & plural.

then I decided to google it, and scrolled
clicked on it and bam ! THERE IT IS !
down till I found the DavesGarden website

I think it was possibly a spelling issue. You spelled it (above) as Corypantha. It has another h - CorypHantha :-).

Ideally, our search would give you that as a suggested spelling, and I'll see if we can resurrect that feature. but correct spelling is a big part of searching any database. I've encountered the same issue when I search sites such as Craigslist and eBay for vintage dishes (another passion of mine, second only to plants.)

I think many are confused as to which bar to use for the "General Search". The bar on my PC is on the left side under the Plant files picture window, and is labeled "Plant Search".
Not the Bar on the right side that seems to stand out more with a magnifying glass next to it. I too made the mistake of thinking that was the main search bar, since it stands out more, and says Search Dave's Gardens.




This message was edited Aug 12, 2015 5:54 AM

Using the new advanced search, or Plant Search with "More Options", if I search for common name or genus hosta and height "under 6 in", there are no results. Maybe there is no height option of under 6" for Hostas? I can find mini hostas by searching by spacing, but not by height. Looking at one of my miniatures, this is the entry in PF:

Plant Size (check one):
Dwarf (leaf < 2.0 square inches, plant < 4” tall)

I think you're right, and I think we may have disregarded it during testing, not realizing how confusing that search would be for a lot of folks. I'll be talking to the techs about moving, renaming and/or otherwise reducing the prominence of that search area.

There is/was a height option for under 6" for hostas. Without being able to see the old entry side-by-side with the new platform, I can't tell you for sure, but my guess is that a field didn't get properly mapped over. Good catch - I will let them know we need to go back through and make sure all fields are mapped/merged for the new search tool.

Maybe a little bubble could come up to explain the search box and the zip code lookup. I'm not even sure the zip code lookup is necessary, but some people might find it useful.

On today's call, we talked about some tweaks to the main page to make it clearer and easier to use - stay tuned for them :-).

I don't use the Plantfiles very often but went there today for the first time in ages and noticed I had ads on them when I looked up a type of eggplant. I got to the file first through googling and then I tried it through the DG site. I got ads both times. I use Safari if that helps. I will try again and see if it is always the case.

Please do let me know. We are working on an issue that we've traced to a rogue ad, but you shouldn't be seeing them if you have them marked "off" and you do.

I have a suggestion (though I admit I'm not a techy so I have no idea if this would work).

I've also run into all the same problems of not being able to find a plant or coming up with plants that had nothing to do with my search.

Is it possible to go to a general plant category that has a gazillion pages (like Ferns) then have a search window for that category that allows you to narrow it down or, at least, search by letter to slim down the list?

For example: I was looking for Leatherwood Fern. Because it's sometimes spelled as one word and sometimes as two, I tried both with no results. I also tried both spellings without "Fern" and came up with a lot of plants with that name, but no ferns. When I brought up the page for ferns there were at least 25 pages! Can that be narrowed down somehow?

BTW, I tried googling Leatherwood Fern and came up with the DG PlantFiles entry, but it did have ads. So I looked to see if it showed me as "logged in" and it did not. Apparently one problem with googling an entry is it doesn't recognize you as a subscriber. I didn't log in to see if the ads went away because I don't like logging into a site from a page of links.

I took screen shots of the ads. If you need them let me know.

Okay, not sure why, but I just typed "Leather Wood Fern" in PlantFiles and guess what popped up? A Leather Wood Fern...go figure!

But...I know not all plants work since I have tried many others.

i've either liked, loved or gotten used to all the changes over the years but changing the PF, omg, i truly hate this.
it's not just that we all were so comfortable with the old format; it was user friendly and easy AND you got results.
very unhappy and frankly, disgusted with the new format.

Can you tell me what you're trying to do/search/find?

hi terry,
i couldn't remember the name of a brom i recently acquired but i knew the common name, Queen's Tears. i put that in the search box and came up with nothing. i eventually remember the genus, Billbergia but spelled it wrong when i did the next search. that also produced a 0. i had to stop and look the spelling up and finally got the plant i was looking for but it was time consuming.
imho, some things are better left alone.
if i were a new member, just coming on to this site for the first time, i would be extremely frustrated and not likely to come back. searching for a plant is how i found DG in the first place and i was so excited by the easy format.
just my 2 cents.

That old search was great... if you at least got close enough, it would give you suggestions, and then you could narrow it down easily. Now, perfection or nothing. And even perfection often results in nothing. Google is so much easier (and it will often give you the Davesgarden entry you are looking for)... it does the 'close but not quite' thing quite well. I often don't even bother using the davesgarden search anymore... just skip the hassle and go to google.

We have asked them to look at the program script that guessed at the spelling, to see if we can re-add it.

Firstly, I want to add my voice to the chorus of members who find the new PF format visually overwhelming. The emphasis on information, especially the ability to view and skim through large segments of the database, has been traded for an emphasis on graphics. IMO this is not value added. The slide show banner proclaiming the greatness of the PF is distracting, the color select buttons are GIGANTIC, as are the size (etc) sorting buttons.

Specifically there are two things I no longer have the ability to do. I would search Iris cultivars alphabetically. (There are tens of thousands of Iris cultivars btw.) For example, it was possible to request all the cultivars starting with the letter M. Dozens of items appeared on each page, and were easily skimmed or scanned. This was helpful to me when unable to recall the name of a cultivar, or when just wanting to see what varieties are out there. I have learned an amazing amount by just reading through the entries this way. Currently I cannot sort this way. I would have to start with letter A, and now that there are a handful of spacious entries on each page, with an eyeful of large photos (and ads, even though I have opted not to see them) it would probably take weeks just to reach the letter M, and another few days to run through that segment.

The option to search by hybridizer is also no longer available. I tried searching for 'bearded iris sass' and got four entries, which have Sass in the cultivar name, not necessarily the hybridizer. As someone who collects historic irises, I want access to that information. That is what I pay for!

Is it possible for the mobile-friendly format to be an option rather than mandatory? I am overwhelmed by the visual content and underwhelmed with the information I am here for. For the record, I never had any difficulty accessing the PF on my phone.


This message was edited Aug 17, 2015 10:28 PM