PDB Suggestion

Is it possible to add some options under the "folliage" category for PDB entries? I remember Terry saying a few weeks back that it was a difficult task to add a color so not sure if this is an easy request.

I'd like to see foliage options for the leaf type such as.....

lobed/scalloped
serrated
lanceolate
needle-like
grass-like

and maybe even

simple
compound

Anyone else think so too? Is it easy or hard to do?

On another note....why is it that a PDB option that is already completed cannot be ADDED TO? I understand not letting others change someone else's entry but often I see options missing that should be checked. Rather than bug the PDB administrators about adding it I usually just keep on going.

Brenda

It's easy to add new checkboxes. The real difficulty - at this point - lies in filling them in...whenever we add a new checkbox, we have several thousand entries that potentially need to be edited to check it off ;o)

As to the "adding to" question...Dave may be able to come up with a programming feat, but when you open up a section to add to it, you can also uncheck what was already there. Which is why currently you can't add to a section.

Simple vs. compound (and twice+ compound) is really a major identifyer, though many folks think the leaflets are the leaves.
I think it is better to have important information added to plants henceforth and without retroactivity rather than not at all.

And "opposite" vs. "alternate" as well are quite important.
(This is a bump)

I'm starting to feel eyeore-itis coming on (symptoms include lots of sighing on my end) but.

If someone will be so kind as to construct a thorough (but not overwhelming! Read: no more than 12 options) list of leaf arrangements and shapes I will give a really hard think (I'm stuck on Pooh-speak for some reason) about how to best introduce this info ;o)

Terry do you have the AHS A-Z? the frontis piece on my RHS has an array of leaf arrangements and shapes. For a full leaf description there are 53 shapes from tip shaped to whole leaf arrangements.

I'm happy to send the RHS list to you if you want but if we use something like this we may need a picture beside each as a descriptive. Many shapes could be confusing.

holding my head in shame as I sadly admit I do not have *THE* authoritative gardening book that *should* be on every serious gardener's bookshelf...(Maybe Santa will deem me a good 'nuff gardener this year to merit my own copy ;o)

What we can do - if we want to get really fancy - is to put line drawings (anybody artistically inclined?) or really good, simple images in Garden Terms, and link each checklist item to its corresponding entry over there. Unless Dave says nope to that one - I don't know how much strain those cross-reference links exert on the system.

......................! utterly speechless, well not quite. I've sent you an email.

OK is it time to have a DG library fund for the PDB editors? ;) (well we can dream)

There is a "Visual Glossary: Leaves" in AHS A-Z that shows structure, arrangement, coniferous leaves, lobing&division, shapes, margins, tips and bases.

I think that's an excellent suggetion Baa, tools for the editors would seem to be an excellent project similar to the "Garden Angel" program.

Count me in if you can set it up.

Oh, quit, y'all. If you're really quiet you can hear me rubbing two nickels together.

I'm not quite that tight, but I just have continued to spend my gardening funds on plants, and I keep hoping I'll find a used AHS A-Z on eBay or half.com one of these days. The problem is there seems to be a lot of other gardeners in the same boat, so the copies I find wind up going for a pretty penny!

Terry I don't think tight comes into it........it would be a small token of thanks for the many hours you spend making the PDB what it is. :-)

Email coming your way.

Happenstance! Thanks, now my first request is the monograph of Digitalis ;) I am joking of course since there is no such tome (and I've bemoaned the fact to the National Collection holder of Digitalis). I've started to collect gardening books from the local charity shops here, which have turned up a few treasures! Thank goodness for people who give these little gems away, a bit of cash to a good cause and I get a book in the deal :)

Terry you have to have the AHS, otherwise I will begin to nag you over that Other book. (hehehe)

Baa - I also cruise the local used booksellers, but yet to find anything other than obscure and usually poorly done things like "The Herb Garden For the Seventies". There are LOTS of gardeners now and either they are getting there first or people are rediscovering dusty tomes in their libraries.

mayhap ye speak of the venerable Hortus Third (just sneaking peeks til my 'puter gets fixed)

Terry, sometimes you just have to bite the bullit! I have both of the TOMES, and have to keep them on counters because my wrists sometime don't want to heft them around. I do agree that it would be only right and proper for you to have them as a very small token of all you've done.

Oh, and about the line drawings, if you're serious, let me know. I could probably scratch something out.

lupinelover, you guessed correctly. Baa snubs my poor Hortus Third. Yes, it's outdated, but a lot of the information is still quite sound. And I'm not giving it up until Four appears. (Which may not happen before the world ends....)

As to the AHS....I know, I know, I know. It really is on my list of "I want's" for Christmas this year - unless I snag a bargain in the meantime. Every time I need it I curse my penchant for buying plants. But when I see my babies in bloom, I conveniently forget how much I spent on them!

Are you guys talking about this book:

http://buybox.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0789419432/ref=pd_luc_mri/002-0394148-3240047?v=glance&s=books&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=*

ISBN Number: 0789419432

Is that the one?

dave

Oh yes Hortus the 3rd ... Hmmmmm ... *G*

Dave yes that's the chappie but there is an updated version although not having seen the new ed, I can't really say how up to date or how diffferent it is to the 96/97 ed. Like all good books, it's not 100% accurate but it's about as close as we can get in the non professional side and under $100

Happenstance, that's a pity. Many of the newer books being published here are simply coffee table tomes with little info but tons of piccies, I would rather have a Roy Genders book fron the 50s for info, yes outdated nomenclature wise but for cultural information they are great, cheap books. I've become such a collector I've even picked up books on plants I don't grow much, I'll get round to doing something with them one day!

Kathleen will those drawings be signed? ;)

Sure, I'll sign them. Who's name were you thinking? :)

Ok, well I had a lovely note about the books and their shortcomings and how I wanted a magic hort book that leaned in the direction of my present fancy, whatever that may be. I misspelled a word and lost the note.

Beyond all that (don't ask, I couldn't even begin to explain!), if someone will give me a list, I could do a few sketches and snailmail them to Terry to see what she thinks.

Kathleen, now you know that would be forgery .... but Fitch would be a nice pseudonym ;)

Dave - that's the one that we need to get for Terry. A 4th of July / Christmas in July gift.

And then there is Hortus:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0025054708/qid=1087599098/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-7334164-5180726

There is an updated two volume paperback version that is tough to find, but not impossible:
http://davesgarden.com/t/399123/

A new edition of AHS A-Z is due out in October.....

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0756606160/ref=pd_luc_23_lc_a21x2//102-0373103-9720945?v=glance&s=books

Terry et al, what do you think of "I think it is better to have important information added to plants henceforth and without retroactivity rather than not at all."?

Ulrich

I don't understand that statement, please explain because I might have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Baa, Terry said in her first reply: "...whenever we add a new checkbox, we have several thousand entries that potentially need to be edited to check it off ;o)"
I feel that progress can be made without revising history.

Thanks Ulrich

So you are proposing that we add checkboxes to all new entries and leave them off the old? If so (and my apologies if I've misconstrued your suggestion), that would make the PDB entries and info rather uneven. Some genera are now in the PDB in their (current) entirety already.

There is one way you can add the information at your leisure and in fact has indeed already been added, I add just that sort of morphological info in a basic way 9 times out of 10 in the comments boxes as do some others. The only thing is, it's not searchable at present.

This is one of the best websites for Leaf Shapes I have found:
http://www.hcs.ohio-state.edu/hcs300/glossary/glossary.htm

Baa, oftentimes the comments are too numerous and lengthy for people like me to read. (Attention span and lack of patience syndrome)

This message was edited Jun 20, 2004 5:02 PM

I scan the comments, when I see a comment by someone I respect, or someone I know to be in my area, or whatever, I read it. The fact that comments aren't searchable greatly reduces their usefulness.

If leaf type is important, then maybe it should be added (it isn't important to me, but what do I know?). As it's own category, if possible, so anyone could check the boxes, not just the person who entered the original foliage info.

Even if no one ever went back and added the info to most of the older entries, at least it would be possible for the information to be included (which it currently isn't) and that would be an improvement. Potential information has value? The PDB is supposed to be striving to be the definitive source of plant info - correct?

Or maybe I've been out in the sun too long? It happens . . .

Cheri'

I agree that leaf shape is important, as is flower shape, inflorescence shape, root growth,in fact all morphological info is important.

One of the things we need to keep in mind is simplicity. While we strive to be a good/great resource of information, a resource that is bogged down in detail can be terribly off putting and in turn loses it's usefulness for many people.

There are a large number of current PDB entries where all of the relevant checkboxes aren't filled in, some checkbox sections (pH comes to mind) definitely get left behind in many new entries. Equally, the propagation method section is an incomplete listing, for example the sowing methods are geared to North America, we have other sowing methods and times in Europe, I'm sure that is true in other countries who have their own methods suited to their climate. This is discounting the wrongly filled in checkboxes and the sections that get filled in their entirity, both due to well meaning members. Fortuntely, we have some wonderfully eagal eyed members who tell us in the Help Desk, without these members our job would be infinitely more difficult, (not that we lie about on cushions and have grapes peeled for us as it is).

We need to look at what is useful for a wide range of people, presentation and ease of application otherwise we're looking at a staggeringly huge choice of checkboxes which would mean a new entry takes an average of an hour or more of research to fill in completely rather than 15 - 20 minutes. As a personal view, I've never thought we ought to be definitive in the PDB, as we're a worldwide site, I don't believe it's acheivable in my life time, perhaps for one region/country we could be but not for all. I do believe we can be a large, reliable source for most though and that is an acheivable aim.

Don't get me wrong, I think morphology would be a great thing to add, it's a case of how and where it can be presented without getting in the way or making the PDB entries way too complicated and if we add leaf, we are going to have to add flower shape at least too.

Well I started this thread and have been watching everyone's comments daily. Just sitting back. I'm not over the top dead-set on having additional foliage specifications added. I guess I started this because I was adding plants that evening and as is often the case when I got to foilage I just felt like there could be a more accurate description than the options I was presented.

The last thing I want to do is make more work for anyone or make the PDB less appealing to your average gardener by presenting too detailed (read "dry") information. I just felt at the time I typed out the post that in some plant cases there are much more discerning foliage characteristics than those we are presented with.

I see Dave popped his head in when the discussion turned to Terry's bookshelf resources, but no comment was made on the ability to "add to" sections that are only partially complete. I still think it would be nice to not have to have a PDB editor enter in missing Hardiness Zones (when the creater only put in their own zone only) or check off additional propagation methods when the creator only put "Sow seed outdoors after last frost". Obviously I think it's right that to CHANGE another's entry checkboxes that should be reviewed by an editor. I know we keep track of the user that entered each checkbox as is evidenced by the Member stats on PDB Options set. So if I see an entry that has only one hardiness zone I should be able to "append" the hardiness section and have the database present me with the remaining unchecked hardiness zones to choose from.

Just my $.02.

Brenda

Brenda, in matters pertaining to the PDB, I rely on Terry and Baa to decide what's best, and then, following a final veto opportunity, I program it. :) So, look to Terry and Baa for a final decision.

dave

Thanks Dave. Ladies?

I'm not opposed to people being able to add to (but not override) other people's checked boxes in any given area of detail. The degree of difficulty in programming such an ability is purely Dave's call.

As to adding the leaves. I've looked at the leaf glossaries in the AHS and RHS books, thanks to Baa and Happenstance sending scanned versions to me, as well as good ole Hortus - not surprisingly, they're fairly similar.

But I'm struggling with how (and whether) to add them: to include all the possible shapes, margins, arrangements and lobings would be a VERY long list (shape alone has over 20 different options), and if we only include some, I fear we'll be no better off than having none.

Assuming that this level of detail is necessary, by the same token do we also need to add checkboxes for bloom shape for all plants (we already do this with daylilies and roses)? If not, why not?

Terry you have mail

Allowing any user to edit any checkbox (even if that check section has already been touched by anyone else) would inherently give them the ability to over-ride a previous person's work. Do we want to open up the possibility that someone can come along and in one night go through and make changes to all the entries?

dave

Dave, that's my biggest concern, and I don't think Brenda was suggesting that we open ourselves to that possibility, either. It would be great if users could somehow check additional boxes, but not un-check the already checked ones. But I can only imagine the programming headaches it would entail ;o)

I'll agree that the PDB plant "Front end" should remain simple and contain the basic information a "normal Gardener" would look/search for but consider a separate "Add-on" for things like roots, stem, flowers, foliage, propagation,... details as advanced plant info page template(s).
Allot of brainstorming will be required to get this right the first time around but just think about the possibilities it could open up.
Retroactive change in large DB's are always difficult but not impossible. Think about "unlocking" the categories with major changes and create a competition for DG users to review/fill in these revised categories :).

Milan

Dave - is it possible when someone clicks on the "Set Options" or "Tell Us" link in an established PDB entry to then check to see if any checkboxes are already marked in that section? If so, is the user that is requesting the ability to "Set Options" the same user that set the already checked boxes? If so then it would open the entire section to the user to add/change boxes. If the user that is requesting to "Set Options" is NOT the original user that set options in this section then only the UN-checked boxes would be available to be set.

It would seem that alot of the code might be in place to make this happen (although I'm not a programmer). If I look at a PDB entry that I set options on then I have the option to EDIT sections I've set previously but not the options that other users have set. If we could just extend that down a layer to the individual checkboxes rather than at the section level we might be able to remove some of the workload from the editors for ommissions that are reported.

Just thinking out loud again (as usual). ;-D

Oh do please pretty pleeeeze allow us to *add to* already checked lists without having to go through that meddlesome Help Desk (can you believe it? they actually asked me once for *factual evidence* that Saguaro cactus was a "pond and aquatics" plant! The nerve!)

That way, I can *add to* the checkboxes for every geranium (a plant I particularly loathe) on the PDB and make them "hardy to Zone 2" BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA! Are those poor Nuffies gonna be surprised when their newly-bought Smelly Pele's freeze up!!

And if I don't like a particular member? Ohhhhwww, the possibilities! [Calvin & Hobbes Leer]

Besides - the Help Desk volunteers are slackers with 'way too much spare time. When somebody makes additions to one of my beautiful, well-thought-out, and obviously 100% correct entries, now I'll be able to get all hissy, and the Help Desk will have to mediate. That should keep 'em busy!

Checks and balances? Bah! Who needs 'em?! My motto: if it ain't broke, fix it!!

;) ;) ;)


(Just in case someone forgot their "read-between-the-lines" glasses, I re-affirm my affection and utmost respect for the courageous HD staff... and Nuffies too - Brad Gushue best skip ever!)