PDB stuff

Dave & vols - can we have a discussion about some of the PDB editing here? I have questions that keep popping up as look over different entries.

#1 at the moment is the pictures that are too big. There's quite a few.

PoppySue: I'm not Dave or Go_vols, but I've noticed quite a few myself, and I use the error report. My understanding is that the person who posted the picture is notified and asked to repost the picture, then the original is deleted by the editor.

It does seem like a lot of work, but there are some great pics out there that are unviewable when you click on them. I'm not quite sure why this has to be done by the original submitter, but maybe altering someone else's picture is a faux pas, and I could understand that.

I don't think there is a notice on the image submitting page that tells folks the size the photo needs to be, though it's been mentioned quite often elsewhere in the Garden. As I recall it's 640x480 with a resolution between 72 and 96... or close to that. Of course, some folks may not know how to edit a pic, but offering this info might help.

Weezin, you're correct. I've noticed a definite trend in the number of too-big photos that are posted. (And having you guys spot them is helpful, although at this point, we haven't taken a "hard line" stance with photos submitted. That may be the next step, once we feel that the database is filled out enough to risk some inevitable hard feelings that come with more stringent guidelines.)

In the meantime, I'm all for adding a note to the photo upload instructions that specify a size, but I know it won't necessarily stop the problem as long as there are gardeners who aren't familiar with photo editing and a) don't know their photo is too big; and b) don't know how to manipulate it even if they are told it's too big.

But...Dave? Want to add a note? It couldn't hurt, and it might at least give a "heads-up" to those who didn't stop to consider size, but would take heed if reminded...

Well, I could program it to automatically re-size the picture down, as it does in the forums.

In fact, what would be super cool would be where it would generate several sizes from the original upload.

Sizes:

Thumbnail
640
800
original (whatever that is)

Then, the thumbnail always links to the 640 size image, but then from there, if a larger one exists, it presents a link to the larger one (for those who want the extra details).

Does that sound like a good idea? It'd take a bit of programming, so I couldn't get to it this month, but it is doable.

dave

That would be awesome - well worth the wait! Thanks, Dave.

Can it apply retroactively to all the photos in the PDB or only to new submissions? Whichever the answer is, that will help guide my efforts in the interim.

Yes, I'd make it apply to the older ones, too. Many of the pictures in the database are already a smaller size, so it wouldn't do much for those, but the ones that are massive would automatically be updated to include the various sizes (defaulting at 640 for everyone).

I think that'd be a fantastic modification to the PDB. I hate to say it, but it most likely won't be until well into Dec, and maybe Jan, before I can tackle this. I have a big ecommerce job that I'm covered up with for at least a few weeks here.

And poppysue: you had emailed me this question a few days ago. I apologize that it took a post to the forum to get my attention.

dave

That's okay Dave. I know what a busy guy you are ;) - I thought there might be some way for me to edit the photos and load them over the huge ones... but I guess not.

Another thought about the PDB entries... There's an option to change the photo order. I thought one to chance the comment order would be helpful. Seems the first comment (which is usually the most informative) is being shoved down to the bottom of the page.

Infran view is a free program, what about a link to infran view from the upload instructions and encouraging people to use the correct size to begin with? Many people don't know how easy it is to resize with infran view. Open the photo click resize, select 680 which is a preset size, click save as, and you are done.

http://www.irfanview.com/english.htm

This message was edited Monday, Nov 11th 9:35 AM

poppy, I agree, I'd love to see the new comments go to the bottom too

Irfanview ;)

Hey Evert - go look at the picture I loaded under codonopsis and tell me what you think.

I'd like to see the website editors have the option to bring up the most eyecatching photo to the top so that it appears on the PDB mainpage, and the most descriptive comment used as the first comment and the others follow in whatever order everyone wants...first to last, last to first...whatever.

Concerning the photos, it is not a question of which is the best photo, but which is is more appealing to the eye in the thumbnail version. For instance, a closeup of the bloom may not show the foliage, so it might not be the best photo for identification, but it certainly is eyecatching as a thumbnail on the mainpage.

Concerning the comments, contributors are asked to post a variety of information, so posts could be detailed data on the identification of the plant, or it could be how well it grew in Aunt Hatty's garden. I think that's what makes our PDB so special. However, I'd really like to see detailed plant information within the options page or at the top of the comments.

Another problem I've seen is that some folks, probably non-members use the comment area to pose questions about the plant or post links to websites. Perhaps we could remind them that the PDB forum is available to them for discussion and questions, and that posting websites would be better there, as well. A link that works this week may be gone in a year, when someone else reads the comment.

Weezin: In fact the images are already setup that way. Vols and I discussed (and I implemented) a few months ago that very thing. So the editors can now change the order of the pictures and put the best one at the top. And then, of course, the best one is what is used as the thumbnail in the list view.

Changing the order of the comments appears to be a hot item right now. Well, would it suffice to order them by date REVERSE (opposite of the way it is now) or should I make them ordered ad-hoc by the editors in the same manner as the images.

Vols, Baa, poppysue? What do you think?

dave

I would leave it up to the editors, a more general comment should be first, however, one can find general info in any plant book, so sometimes the specific details may solve a problem someone is having with the plant and that is why they came to the data base, and not for the general information.

Dave the date reverse would be great for now. It would be nice to change the order if we ever need too tho.

Alrighty, I've reversed the date, and later on (early 2003, probably) let's see about getting the admin-order thing going for the comments.

dave

Sounds good to me, Dave.

Cool! ~ Hang on Dave ... I'm sure I'll think of sumthin else for you to do too!

Sounds great. You know I run out of creativity awefully quickly and rely on ya'll to keep the good ideas coming. :)

Time is really the issue. I guarantee that I won't be able to tackle anything serious on DG until well into 2003, alas.

dave

I have a question for Poppy Sue, how can you tell they are too big? They all seem ok, but I don't often go click on the big pic, I mostly look at the thumb nail. If they are too big, does this mean, the big picture does not work?

Hellooo!
http://davesgarden.com/t/362583/too%20large
Dave, 640 still requires some scrolling, especially vertically. 525 would be more ideal.

Ulrich: Just how small is your monitor? :)

I am wondering about that, mine is standard size and I just looked at a whole bunch and some were even on the small side, none took up the whole screen.

Well have a looky at these ones :)
http://plantsdatabase.com/showpicture/5432/
http://plantsdatabase.com/showpicture/7155/
http://plantsdatabase.com/showpicture/7154/

Well, I'll be...
Dave, my monitor is 17", but it is the RESOLUTION!
I'm running at 800 x 600; now I tried 1024 x 768 and that makes one heck of a difference. The pictures are a lot smaller and so are text, icons, and everything else. I guess I need new glasses, so for now I'll stick with 800 x 600.
Sue, your three pictures are gigantic on my screen at any setting.
This has been most informative; thanx y'all.

I could see the purple cone flower was too big, but the other links did not work. I would ask the person to resize to 680.

A minority report:

I'm using a 23" Cinema Display at 1920 x1200, so the bigger and higher quality the pic, the better (for me.) I realize that a hundred thousand 20meg photos would put a bit of a strain on your storage Dave, but the usual high quality of the pictures here is soooo much more pleasant than 12k thumbnails on some of those *other* sites...

If there were options like you stated above.....? (If not, then this miscreant will reset his Photoshop defaults with a sigh and a resigned grin.)

Jus' my two yen...

;)

There'll be options as discussed above, and that will completely solve the problem.

(And, Lopho, I am also in the minority with you... 21" at 1600x1200 here).

dave

Yes!!!!!! Clout!!!

;)

How do you type that raspberry sound? Y'all just be quiet now, and silently smirk while the rest of us poor souls deal with normal-size monitors!!!!

The reason it is so easy to upload here, is I don't have to work to make the file a certain number of k, I can just press and go.

Sorry go_vols - didn't mean to put on airs.

Listen - let me make it up to you - you can have my huge old Trinitron for free (if you'll pay the postage from Japan....)

;)

hehehehehe, that's okay. But thanks for the offer! I'm holding out for a new flat screen. Sigh....

I love my flat screen, you will never go back once you try a flat screen. If you use it to view photos like me, then you must have one.

Vols: What size flatscreen is acceptable to you?

I have a flat screen, but it's not the 2" thick streamlined ($$$$$) that I really really want. (wahhhhh!)

You already have an LCD monitor? My memory tells me you have a regular CRT.

I have a so-called "flat screen", but it's still a CRT. No LCD - yet (Those are the 2" deep ones I covet, yes?) I *think* mine's a 17", but it might be 19" - whatever it is, any bigger won't fit in my rolltop desk (what a terrible world we live in, when advances in technology are hamstrung by something as mundane as a desk!!!!)

Yes, the LCD screens are the ones you covet. They are absolutely beautiful, the picture is crystal clear and it is much easier on the eyes when staring at it for hours on end.

My next monitor will definitely be an LCD.

dave

So you don't have one already Dave? I thought from the way you were talking.........
I'll have to save the pennies as i spend far too long looking at photos etc. Didn't realise they were that much better - thought they were just flatter :)