Am I the only one? Plant file rant

I mean that using Firefox or another browser to create the bookmark does not really resolve the issues at hand. I think that the layout of the DG site itself (aka the software) is where the updates would be most effective for the highest percentage of users. Does that make any sense?

I wasn't trying to signal anybody out it just seemed you expressed the biggest concern of everybody. I think if the search was easier to get to that would solve lots of the problems. If it was on our homepage etc then we could get to it easy.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but what I suggested is an option for the time being. :)

Threegardeners, I think I understand. If I put Stapelia in the Common Name area I get: 34 matches: http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/adv_search.php?searcher%5Bcommon%5D=stapelia&searcher%5Bfamily%5D=&searcher%5Bgenus%5D=&searcher%5Bspecies%5D=&searcher%5Bcultivar%5D=&searcher%5Bhybridizer%5D=&search_prefs%5Bbla

If I put Stapelia in the Genus Area I get 41 matches: http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/adv_search.php?searcher%5Bcommon%5D=&searcher%5Bfamily%5D=&searcher%5Bgenus%5D=stapelia&searcher%5Bspecies%5D=&searcher%5Bcultivar%5D=&searcher%5Bhybridizer%5D=&search_prefs%5Bblank_cultivar%5D=&search_prefs%5Bsort_by%5D=rating&images_prefs=both&Search=Search

Someone told me to try and always use the genus name as so many different plants have the very same common name - but that poses a problem for those of us who have no clue as to waht the genus name is!

Exactly!!!!

s/w = software

I guess it comes down to usability - I didn't know if anyone on the admin side realised that it's not easy, or, in some cases, even possible to successfully use the search function in Plant Files. It it's okay to have people using Google to find stuff on Dave's Garden instead of the search function, then it's okay - people are likely to use the easiest route possible.

I think it's a little ridiculous to be hanging out here all day but to go 'off-site' to get back on to PF. That being said, I myself complained mightily when Google was incorporated into plantfiles searches. When I get bored I look things up on PlantFiles for entertainment! Seriously.

xx, Carrie

I totally agree with some of you that find the PF search a problem. It's one of my biggest pet peeves about the site. I remember complaining about it when Dave made the changes a while back, but then I was the only one that said anything so I dropped the subject. IMHO it takes too many steps to get to the search feature whether it is the generalized or advanced search. I like to help people in the ID. forum and I find myself using google most of the time because it's faster and easier. I'm sure most people would prefer a link to the PF than a google link, but sometimes I'm in a rush so I don't want to bother with the many steps that it takes to use the PF search.

What about having a Search feature just above all forums that goes directly to the PF? It wouldn't have to be a large box just a tab or button, or just a link like the ones at the bottom of each page that takes one directly to the PF search. I don't know how difficult it would be to do it, but I'm trying some ideas.

Add me to the list of members who never use the search functions here. It is all just too cumbersome.

I will also admit that I have gotten very frustrated trying to navigate this whole site, but I hate to complain because it is such a valuable resource.

lol - maybe I've been asleep at the wheel, but does the Generalized Search in PF use a simple Google search of the internet? I thought that it used to be a function within PF itself, no? Sorry if I've misunderstood.

No, wrightie, I probably confused you. One of the changes over the months? years? was that PF would give you Google ads if it couldn't find anything. I along with a lot of other people complained.

The General Search right now does use the Google search engine, but it only searches DG not the whole internet. I think it used to be different, but then it wasn't working well so Dave took it down and put in the Google search instead. But it's easier to go in one step to Google's own website and search from there rather than going to Guides & Info, then Plant Files, then Search and Browse Tools, then General search, then you can finally type what you want to in the box. So I think I can see people's point on why it could be easier to get to!

You can get there in 2 clicks though (but it'll be 3 if you're coming from somewhere other than your home page)...put the general search page in your favorites, then put your favorites in the custom menu on your home page.

Oh, thanks, Carrie! ... goin' back to sleep now.

and thank you, too, ecrane!

I have PF as a preference on my home page, but when I'm in the Plant ID forum and see someone is asking about a plant that looks familiar and I would like to try and help them with a correct ID .... it's just a hassle to have to go through all those steps to get to PF to look up the plant. I LOVE Googling so that's where I usually go to search for a plant, especially if I'm being real lazy or in a hurry because it takes too many steps to get to PF on DG.

Is there any way to put a short "primer" on the page regarding how to put the name in correctly? Sometimes I have this three or four part scientific name and don't know what goes in which category. I can never really figure it out so I just go off and do a web search and forget out plantfiles. This is a shame because there is such wonderful information here that is difficult or impossible to find somewhere else.

The thing that is easy to forget is that there are nearly 160,000 entries in PlantFiles, so a generalized search for any given word or phrase has to look at about 950,000 fields (Each entry has six fields - common name, family name, genus name, species, cultivar, and hybridizer.) A field-specific search only has to look at one (or a few) fields in each of those 157,000-plus entries.

I'm all for making the search more user-friendly, but we also have to remember that every search must plow through a massive repository of data to find results.

No matter how it's approached, there's going to have to be some work on the part of the user - you will need to be somewhat specific in what you're looking for, or be willing to dig through a lot of way-off-base results (after waiting for the system to dredge up all the possible matches for your consideration.)

Does anyone have an example of another online database (it doesn't have to be for plants, necessarily) that the search seems to work better, faster, or more intuitively?

The number of clicks it takes to get to any area of the site is a whole other topic (and one that has been hashed out before, during and after Dave re-worked the tabs ;o)

:) You know the old saying: "You can't please everyone". I hope I don't sound like I'm complaining .... I am so very Thankful for Dave's Garden and all the good things I've found here! I will just do the easiest thing for me to save a few steps, especially when I'm in a hurry. I, many times go through the three steps to get to PF and find what I'm looking for. But, if I'm in a big hurry or being really lazy, I just Google!

I know the Nike saying "Just Do It" ... my saying is "Just Google It"!

Yeah - I can just use Google if it's that big of a hassle, Terry.... like I said, I didn't know if ya'll knew how it was working - or not- here in subscriber land. Google appears to be the best answer. As for the tabs - I doubt that would be a difficult one to fix, but as I'll be using Google, it's not really an issue. You seem to be saying the conversation happened prior to this thread and is over.

BTW, my husband's company has an on-line database that allows you to search for cruise vacations by company, boat, destination, itinerary, date and port..... but you have to be a member to view it, sorry.

I learned to Google to get to PF from a more experienced DGr. Figure it is still the most efficient cut to the chase.

I haven't read all this thread nor do I have any suggestions but I've always had trouble doing a search and have to Google it too.

Hey, how about getting feedback from the entire DG community by posting a survey style question on this topic in the Quiz area?

Given that this thread was only posted this morning and appears to be getting a lot of traffic, it sure seems like several people have opinions that they would like to express on this subject.

I also have gotten to the point of just using google for my initial search, as the majority of the time it has DG close to the top.

It would be nice if I could just stay within the DG site and do my search. I too get mixed up with the genus, cultivator etc...options.

Deb

When I do a google search I always quickly scan for the line beginning: Detailed information on .......


and know it is taking me right to the Plant Files!

I, too, have used Plant Files, a truly outstanding collection of information, errors aside. I love the grass roots nature of it, because so much more info becomes available that way. And having the Dmail of the contributor gives us the opportunity to Dmail the contributor.
Much as I love plants and try to learn the botany, I still have a hard time distinguishing the family from the genus from the species. I think I can recognize a cultivar. The result is, that given a latin name like dranunculus vulgaris, I often don't know which name goes in which box -- family, genus, species, cultivar. I actually mostly know that stuff now but learning it has been a steep curve. Even so, I don't always know which field to search for a particular word.
I gather that there is no full text search of the metadata for a given entry. Instead, there is a search of each field in the metadata. I have no idea what search engine you are using, but I assure you a full text search of all the metadata at once would make searches faster and easier for those of us who don't know enough botany to know which box to put our word in.
That is why google works so well. But there are times when google doesn't work so well. If a plant cultivar contains a common phrase such as "Miami Beach", a google search will get a million hits on Miami Beach the city and not but one or two on the iris "Miami Beach".
So I alternate on searching Plant Files with google and with Plant Files own search engine. Sometimes one works better, sometimes the other.
I don't expect DG to be Google which is the work of a large and driven staff. You guys have to know both plants and computer science. But using more full text searches would help a lot.
I have given up searching threads for anything. I almost never get anything I am looking for. I have some theories on how to improve that, but I have gone on long enough already.
All things considered, Dave's Garden is a masterpiece of creativity and I am an addict. The searching can, however, be improved, especially for inexperienced searchers.

This message was edited Oct 15, 2007 9:53 PM

Well said Pajaritomt! I couldn't even have explained it that well ~ much less search in the right category.

After all, how bad can Google be... it brought many of us here for the first time... and it doesn't ask me if I meant "KoolAid" lol

DGr's

One thing to consider is that Google as a company which has dedicated its existence to searching. DG can in no way expect to be Google and shouldn't. I say, use Google when it works, but watch out for when it gives you more hits than you can go through. I once searched for Iris "Miami Beach". I didn't find any hits for the iris I knew existed before I ran out of patience. So then I tried iris Keppel "Miami Beach " on Google. I think I got one hit that had anything to do with the plant iris. If I insert the terms "iris" in the common name. and the term "Miami Beach" in the cultivar blank, I get the iris I was looking for. The problem is I have to know which terms go in which blank.
Searching is a complex subject and many great minds have banged their heads on this wall. Dave's has done a remarkable job without turning into a search engine company.
We can give them small tips that will help. DG, in return, can give us search instruction. Perhaps a thread on searching. Let's face it, database searching can be a full time paid job. We will not likely all be experts, but we can all learn more. If we had a search thread, we could send in our search failures and perhaps someone could suggest the way they would search for it -- on DG or elsewhere.
Still, there are some ways Dave's can improve, but let us understand that it is already amazingly good.

I Think This Garden is Amazingly Wonderful! So many interesting forums, interesting people and interesting ideas!

Maybe we just need some search tips somewhere handy, including a brief botanical lesson on which is the genus, the species, the cultivar. It doesn't take long to figure out. I figured it out by reading seed catalogs.

I think one of the problems is that some folks feel that they have to fill in all of the blanks in the search. I rarely ever do.

Generally common name and cultivar will return the results I need. It's just a matter of learning what the terms mean. When you know that common name means a general description of the plant...such as iris, rose...or even forget-me-not...and your cultivar is the named variety such as....White Cloud, New Dawn, or Blue Eyes. The search works great.

I agree that something needs to be done to make PF more user friendly for folks who aren't as comfortable with some of the terms, or aren't sure what word goes where. I think that's the biggest hurdle. Maybe an explanation of the terms like description above might help.

Last weekend over in Pets, I showed several folks how to search for cultivars with specific names, and they were astounded. They could put their pet's name in the cultivar box and PF would return all plants with that name in it. We expanded, and they were searching for children's names or grandmother's names...and having a ball....they never knew that one could do this.

I linked to the search page rather than the individual plant's page, so that they could see just where to type the information...and it worked beautifully. People who had never ventured into PF were using the search function and enjoying it.

(I wish Journals were that easy.....I gave up on mine years ago...never could figure out how it worked....and now I can't even access what I managed to put in there years ago)

I like a button that can be hit anywhere on DG to take you to a PF search...but I'm not sure how easy that would be to do.

My suggestions originally were that the pages mostly used should be easily accessible at the top as they were, including the Garden Talk and Home Talk tabs. I have no problem with those now as they are all easily accessed via a 'Forums' link in the box at the top side of each page as well as in my Custom Homepage box. I think all Forums being together is a better idea.

http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/p.php?pid=3695045

It's the PlantFiles and BugFiles which are the problem, if I wanted to access those I need to go to the Home Page, where I have put them in my Custom Box. That is, in my opinion, an extra step I don't need and I think many would appreciate an easily accessible link wherever they are. In a way it is closing the door on people to these two main features here at DG.

A Google is what I have found easiest to use too, and let's remember that if we come across DG on a Google that is bringing it always closer to the top of a Google search, which is in itself a good thing as it can bring in more people.

To bring the people into the shop with promise of wonderful wares, then close these wares behind locked doors with no glass to view them through doesn't make sense. These people are new to this and need to be dazzled, otherwise they may disappear disappointed never to return. Even the seasoned shoppers need to easily see the wares, out of sight, out of mind. I rarely visit either of these now they are not accessible with ease from the top tabs, eventually the mind just closes off to it.

Searching the Plant Files has had it's problems for me, too much info and it won't often do it, sometimes not even with the simplest bit of info. I had a little knowledge of plants but not a lot when it came to Families etc, I used my RHS Plantfinder book to find a Family, sometimes a Google.

By searching I have learnt a lot, and sometimes that is the best way to learn, but for those who do get confused I think a simple example (or two) in a box on the search page along with a brief explanantion of what each section is for would be a great help. E.g.

Common Name: Rose (the name you would usually use)
Family: Rosaceae (A larger group with many similar plants in the same family)
Genus: Rosa (The Latin name for a plant)
species: omeiensis (A specific identifying Latin name)
OR
Cultivar Name: Red Wing (A given name for a plant by a breeder or finder)

http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/adv_search.php?Search=Click+here+to+search+for+plants

With an added NOT to fill in too many boxes.

I . also preferred having Plantfiles on the tab bar, but that because plantfiles is my main interest on the site. Other prefer other areas, so I am willing to tolerate the minor inconvenience of an extra step to get there. I have lean to navigate plant files pretty well and there have been some improvements over the years. It is more tricky than google, It will not accept plurals in common name as a n example, You can search for watermelon but not watermelons, On the whole it does recognize alternate spelling of cultivar names, which has enabled me to enter duplicates from time to time. Example the pepper, Satan's Kiss versus Satans Kiss. Certainly, I get aggravated because the checkboxes often do not match up well with some types of plant, particularly vegetables. As for zip codes, I only use that to indicate that I have grown that plant in a particular location. I may know that it will grow some place, but I will not enter the zipcode unless I have personally grown it. If you want to know specifically how I grew it, there is D-mail. There is nothing that can't be improved, but all in all, Daves Garden is more user friendly than any other plant site that I have tried and certainly for all its quirks, I have not found any plant data base that comes close to plantfiles.

This message was edited Oct 16, 2007 10:11 AM

Hear, hear!

Yes, we all know that Plant Files is a great source of information, but we just also know that with the expertise and caring attitude of people like Dave and Terry, it could be better and easier - if they know about our frustrations. We are simply letting them know.

Couldn't say it better myself, thanks.

I've been giving this subject a lot of thought over the past 24 hours. The reason we have so many different search engines for PlantFiles is because we've tried to satisfy every need. Clearly, though, a generalized search engine that actually works really well is at the top of the wish-list and I will indeed be re-programming it to hopefully work much better.

It will never be as good as Google, though. They are a multi-billion dollar company with hundreds of developers working to improve their search technology. I, on the other hand, am one person who is -not- specializing in search and I make no pretenses that I am very weak in this area.

But, now that we have shiny new servers that can handle quite a load, I intend to rework the PF generalized search and if it performs the way we hope, we should make it the prominent search engine for PlantFiles.

One thing on my 'wish list' is what Farmerdill mentioned...sometimes hyphens, apostrophes and other odd punctuation will not show results...often resulting in multiple entries. If possible, this needs to be addressed when you are writing new code.

In the meantime, I have updated the generalized search and uploaded the code just a few moments ago.

It's based on the same code that operates the Forums search engine. So, visit PlantFiles, click on "Search Plants" up top, and see what you think.

Remember: this is not a panacea. It's just a better search engine to use for now until we really figure out how we want this.

dave

Thanks for the consideration, Dave - that leaves me a lot more optimistic. If there's a piece of the puzzle that you are struggling with, let me know - my DH is the chief architect of a pretty intense system and might be able to point you somewhere.

thank you, dave! (rushes off to try out new features)