Entered species in Data base without information

I have noticed recently there are a ton of entered species in the Plant Data base but nothing else has been entered- no photos or information. Not sure why this is happening, but it makes entering new information, such as common names, impossible. Did someone just sit down in front of a botany book and enter all the species the could read out of the index?? It's only my opinion, but I think one should with hold adding a species unless someone really has something to contribute, like a photo or information, personal experience, etc. It's annoying to try to add a new species, find it's already added, but without anything else entered. What do you think?

ummm, are you talking about the Aloe species entries? If so, you might need to talk to Dave about that - I think he did a mass upload recently.

Lest you think I'm just throwin' our esteemed webmaster under the proverbial bus, I will say in defense of down-and-dirty mass uploads: they sometimes help get the ball rolling. We did mass uploads of Hemerocallis, Hosta and Iris cultivars, and those entries have attracted some very well-versed collectors who graciously share their photos and information to help "flesh out" these skeleton-like entries.

We also did the same thing with Tomatoes and Beans, albeit a little less successfully (still trying to light a fire under some veggie growers; hopefully it'll happen one of these days.)

If you can help fill out these entries, we'd certainly appreciate your input. And I DO hear ya about the need to add SOMETHING when you add an entry; I deal with the "empty entry" phenomenon a good part of each day :)

There is the option "Add a synonym name"; why not also "Add a common name"? That would finally solve the problem mentioned by palmbob.

Dave's the ultimate judge in this matter, as he writes the code :)

The synonym fields work a bit differently than the other fields - notice how they show up beneath the other name fields, and each synonym is separate. Common names would likely be displayed in a similar manner, and I'm not sure how that would work.

From my standpoint, I believe there's enough confusion over the input fields as it is. I estimate that I spend - conservatively - a half hour a day rearranging and reformatting these fields for new plants entered. Don't get me wrong - I'm delighted to have new entries pouring in! There's just a lot of "ooopsies" to take care of in any given day. I also find a fair number of common names entered as synonyms by mistake. Adding common name fields *might* prevent this, or it might cause more confusion...

Bob, while we continue discussing the problem, please use the "report an error" link for additional common names, too.

Terry -

I agree with palmbob to a certain extent, because I'm lazy.

When I'm the first to upload a pic to one of these "naked entries" I no longer have the "set all options" option - so I've gotta enter each one individually, submit, wait, and go back to the next, which seems like a real pain in the derrière. Like I said, I'm lazy. (Actually, I haven't done it yet - I've been putting off posting Echeveria albicans for a few days...)

May I suggest a compromise that would leave everyone happy? Continue to do the mass uploads to "help get the ball rolling", but (with some of Dave's programming magic) leave all the options, common names, etc. to the first person to actually post a pic. Is that feasible?

Just my 2.18 Yen... ;)

I've found that Dave's new "Switch to Live View" at the top of each entry allows you to set all options without the constant back and forth. And if you sometimes lose your place like I do the live view will update the record, where as the regular view is only updated every 2 minutes.

Aha!

As usual, Dave has come up with a fix even before I find the problem!

"Live View"? Guess I'll have to try it...

;)

Well, I don't know if Palmbob's issue was with Aloe as Terry suggested, but I have seen a couple of recent entries that I would have to agree with Bob's assessment of.....someone just sat down with a book and started entering names.

Now maybe these are results of mass uploads, I don't know. But the one that sticks in my mind was that they had uploaded a photo but it was not their photo. They correctly gave credit for the photo (it was like a promotional photo or something). They even posted a comment that they had not grown this but .....blah, blah, blah, blah.

I was a little disappointed in seeing this. I think what really gets people to use the PDB as their ONE source or FIRST source for plant info, is that the entries are SO complete. The addition of real-world images and pics of seeds and seedpods and even seeing the aesthetic combinations that people use a given plant for, well, in my book that's invaluable info. Then to top it all off there's this really great section on real-gardener's real world experiences about the plant. Well, to be honest the way I found DG was by searching for plant info. I stumbled on the PDB and started clicking. Next thing you know I'm a card-carrying member!

I think the quality of the PDB is what is so ultimately important.

I've recently purchased a new shrub that does not exist in the PDB. I've thought about adding it, but have decided not to until I have some personal experience with it to add to my entry. Until then maybe someone else will come along and add it. I'll add to it in time. But, to just put it in there for no other purpose than having it in there just doesn't sound very "exceptional" to me. And it could very well be that just getting them in there is the impetus to have others provide meaningful data. But in the meantime the PDB entry is no more and no less than the average run-of-the-mill "plant info" sites out there. My $.02. Brenda

Uh, umm, well..

Happenstance? I just tried what you suggested, but "Switch to Live View" doesn't change anything - I've still gotta enter each option individually. I'm I doing something wrong?

langbr - just like you, I stumbled on to DG whilst googling around for a plant pic. The quality of the site was impressive, and I felt compelled to add a few of my own pics, and then some wonderful person treated me to a subscription. I think everybody agrees with you that "the quality of the PDB" is of the utmost importance, as witnessed by the zeal of all the posters, and the heroic efforts of the Help Desk Persons. But definitions of "quality" differ...
I only set options on plants I have grown or killed (with a few exceptions of course) - but if everyone were to do that, we wouldn't have half the entries we have now. I trust that "botanical garden photo-op" posters are actually researching culture for the plants they post, and I have no problems at all with that. IMHO the "honesty level" at DG is exceptional compared to the real world.

Hmm. I think everybody in this thread has a valid point. So... how to reconcile them...

Lophophora -

Now that I think about it, I do believe the "set all options" within the Live View is only available if you originally entered the plant into the database. If you are adding to a record that was created by another member, I think that it has to be done one option at a time live view or not.

Perhaps Dave/Terry could jump in and confirm this?

Yep. "Set all options" is only available to the person who creates the entry - there's no easy way to allow someone else to "set all options" without also giving them the ability to change the information submitted by others.

As to the question on whether or not to add a plant you've just purchased (or you are interested in buying, etc...) consider this: if YOU create the entry, someone else who has grown it for a while can come along and add their "$0.02 worth" which can be very helpful to you and other readers.

There's no mystery or magic as to how commercial sources and authoritative books like the AHS/RHS publications get their information: people try to grow the same plants in different areas of the country or the world, and their experiences are compiled and presented for others to use.

When I joined DG three years ago, the PDB was itty bitty - fewer than 100 entries. PoppySue and Jody were among the brave pioneers who had added most of the original entries, after Dave christened it with his initial entry for Lagerstroemia (Crepe Myrtle).

For most of 2001, it remained fairly small, slowly growing with new additions one-by-one. I offered my services to standardize the entries, fix spelling errors, etc. In 2002, Dave found a "public domain" list of tomato cultivars, and I found a similar one for daylilies. Overnight, we went from a few hundred plants to 25,000 which helped us to to establish a more commanding presence on the internet ("If you build it, they will come" is definitely a truism for databases, if not for baseball fields.)

To be honest, we're still suffering the growing pains of filling in the blanks from those huge downloads of mostly-empty entries (and the subsequent ones we've done for other species.) But every day we're attracting more people who are drawn to the vision of being part of a community of gardeners sharing information. If we had insisted on building it one entry at a time, it would still have errors to be corrected, and it would have remained a well-kept secret for just a few DG members to work on.

Hi Terry!

Actually - I just figured out a way to "set all options".

When I want to post a new plant that has a "naked/empty" entry on the PDB - in other words, an entry with no data 'cept the name, all I do is go to "add a new plant to the list" and do so, then set all options and post my comment and pics. Then I go to the "naked/empty" entry page, and click on the "Found an Error?" button and ask the Help Desk to delete the page (I know you and poppysue and Baa have all sorts of spare time on your hands...*LOL*)

Then I get credit for that plant and in 20 years can realize my dream of having that really cool "UBER" under my name too, just like the pros!

Terry, would you get terribly angry and throw things at me if I did it that way?

;) ;) ;)

I agree with your assessment, Terry. In fact pretty much did so at the end of my post (another late night rambling of mine). I guess the point I was trying to make is the disappointment of finding an entry that doesn't live up to the my expectation of the database. I love the PDB. I just hope that as editors you consider that aspect of the editorial process. Which I'm sure you all do. I've said my piece. I think Lophophora said it pretty good when he/she said "everybody agrees with you that "the quality of the PDB" is of the utmost importance". I was trying to provide specifics around what Palmbob originally posted when he started this thread. Brenda

Hehehe..

Actually, *you* said it langbr - I was quoting.

Lopho-dude

;)

Terry -

Here's an example of where it does become difficult when trying to add to an existing record.....

A record exists for:
Dichelostemma ida-maia
http://plantsdatabase.com/go/1339/index.html

I have an image ready to upload, locate the record, which had some basic info, no image, one comment. I've added a note also, some of the info could have been added to the "Other Details" section of the check list, but only the original record creator has access to that apparently.

In this example this little bulb is drought tolerant and attractive to birds. I've included that in my note, but I think the info would be more useful in the body of the record.

Here's one that I tried to add to. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong? It says zone 11 for hardiness. Well, this is an annual, can be grown here in 5b, and I know many other people in many other zones grow this as well. I would hate for someone from the North look this up and be discouraged when they only see zone 11.

http://plantsdatabase.com/go/51754/index.html

All I could add was my zip code.

Brenda, I agree with your philosophy and desire for the PDB, and I wish there were an easy answer. The fact is it takes a lot of hard work to make each entry complete.

Here's the rest of the (PDB) story (think "Paul Harvey" for all you U.S. readers who have ever listened to AM radio ;o)

As we began to "grow" the PDB, we realized we needed many more people to share their knowledge. So I asked Dave if we could have a month-long PDB challenge and contest. August 2001 was the timeframe (For most of us, August is the month it's too hot to be outside, so you might as well do something productive while you're sitting in your air-conditioned house, right?) This thread started it: http://davesgarden.com/t/69379/ and Dave announced the winners here: http://davesgarden.com/t/89504/

In August 2002, we held a second challenge, this time to add details and comments: http://davesgarden.com/t/306985/ and winners were congratulated: http://davesgarden.com/t/347373/

I wanted to take us down this memory lane trip not for nostalgic purposes, but to let newer members see how we got where we are. Should we hold another challenge? We can, but I think our efforts are better served in encouraging each person to finish what they start - if you add an entry, add the details you can find to go with it. This thread (don't let the title throw ya) is traveling a similar path to this one: http://davesgarden.com/t/427304/

(Lophophora, I *would* throw something at you, but I secretly agree with you on that being the easist route. And I'm a really bad aim, so I'd probably hit poor Baa in the head instead and she doesn't deserve it ;o)

Karrie: The hardiness zones are for perennials; Nasturtiums are actually a tender perennial/tropical plant. (They are not frost-hardy, but will live in tropical climates.) True annuals should be noted as "not applicable" on the hardiness zone section - if you find one marked otherwise, please use the "report an error" link and we'll take a look.

Back to Nasturtiums: for those of us living outside the frost-free zones, we grow them as annuals. All the Naturtium majus entries are now categorized as Annual and Tropical/Tender Perennials.

You were looking at the entry for 'Empress of India' so if that cultivar does well for you, by all means, add your ZIP code. There are areas of the country where nasturtiums do NOT do well (my garden, for instance - although that's a personal problem with the gardener, not a regional issue ;o)

ok - well just to let you know, it is listed as an annual. The seeds that I bought also said it was an annual - so who knows. I'll take pics of them later in the year and add them to the database. :)

Terry

I think Lophopora would much rather you hit me with things than him anyway *G*

Karrie

There are quite a number of true perennials labelled by the companies as annuals, I suppose it all depends on where they are marketing their products. It's very confusing but trying to over winter some of these is a nightmare.

Happenstance

anything like that, pop it in the help desk and we'll add those for you :)

Terry - she *does* deserve it!

She's been a very bad Baa recently, making fun of people who read wih their mouths open, and being insufferable about her lilies.

Something heavy pls.


;)

If I aim at her, I just might hit you, you know ;o)

About the subject of adding a plant when you have little personal knowledge on it. Sometimes it can be okay, say if you have a great picture of it. There have been many times I have gotten information about a plant or cultivar I have seen at a nursery by googling, but not found any good pictures of mature specimans. All I have seen is poor pictures on other pages or a small plant at the nursery. If someone has taken a good quality picture of a plant that they don't know much about it but say the name and there is no entry, I think they should still create an entry for it and just leave the stuff they don't know about it blank, or do some research. I recently did this with a couple plants I had seen at local public gardens - mostly test gardens.

OK - now here is where I am confused. If someone starts the entry - say with JUST a picture, can another person go in and add the hardiness zones or other specifications (like full sun, etc......)

For example: I went to a common perennial "Shasta Daisy" and saw where I could put my zipcode, but not where I could add information to the specifications. I could "say" things about the plant, but not add to the specifications.

If there is that option, where is it? If there isn't that option, then are we stuck with just a picture?

karrie, yes they can. Let's say you start an entry - you put in the family, genus, species and cultivar names. Then you add a picture or a comment.

Someone else can come in and add height, somebody else zones, somebody else water or sun requirements, bloom color etc.

However, if you check ANY box within a section (say the height), no on else (other than an editor) can change/add to that section. So if you're going to fill out zones or height, check all boxes that apply, and be as certain as you can about the accuracy of your information.

Also, if there is nothing under that option make sure you have clicked on "Switch to live view" to be able to add to that option.

This message was edited Apr 29, 2004 2:54 PM

Terry, then I hope people will be very careful when they put in information. But if we notice something wrong, we can always notify you or Dave, and you can look into it and change it, if need be, right? I think my questions on the PDB are answered - and if there are entries that are in there that people are concerned about finishing, then if they know the full specifications for them (full zonage, etc...... then they should go for it). Thanks Terry! :)

If you notice something wrong, there is the "report an error" link in the PBD. While you are actually looking at the incorrect information or picture, find the link (top right corner of every page, beneath the PDB logo), click on it, tell us what's wrong - and don't remove the URL that is automatically added.

That will put the report into a queue where Baa, PoppySue or I can retrieve it, follow the link to the wrong info/picture, and fix it ;o)