They're Talking About You

In a good way. The subject of plant profiles came up on another site and Dave's was at the top of the list. http://www.gardenrant.com/my_weblog/2007/11/plant-profiles-.html

I thought I should bring my suggestion for improvement here. Maybe it has been suggested before. Dave is it possible in the foliage descriptions in Plant Files to get beyond color only and describe the leaves as alternate, opposite, simple, compound, pinnate, lobed, serrate, glabrous, pubescent, ect ect? That would be most helpful when using Plant Files to ID unknown plants.

ilima

That writer has issues.. big ones. The whole point of Daves Garden Plant files is they are built by us - the gardeners - not someone trying to sell us something. Her try to make something better left me needing more information, and no one would find us here looking up "Daves forums" lol.... At least she gives choices for those people who do not what to be here.

I thought it was an interesting blog but like most blogs it tries to analyze and tell that persons opinion without any fear of being expected to fix all the things they are complaining about.

She wants a web site that will give her the specific information she is seeking in a format of her choosing using precisely the terminologies she is familiar with. So no site lives up to her expectations... maybe she should set up that super site and provide it free to all the world too!

Well, they say there is no such thing as bad publicity so long as they spell the name right...and she did spell Dave's Garden right.

Susan is a muckraking journalist at heart that is for sure, but also kind of beside the point.

What does anyone think about making the foliage descriptions here at Dave's Garden Plant Files more descriptive of the leaf type and arrangement patterns?

ilima

I think it would be useful to have that. The potential problem I see is that while opposite and alternate are fairly self explanatory, a lot of the other terms are ones that a lot of people probably don't know what they mean (and won't take the time to look them up), so those sections will either be constantly getting left blank, or they'll be filled in wrong.

ilima, I am so sorry! I got side tracked by the Blogger and failed to address your question! I agree it would be helpful information to have for identification purposes and would be an improvement to the plant files overall.

Plant files is an excellent resource here, and accessed freely. I believe it still has information about more plants than the USDA database. When I need information about a plant - I come here, simple.

I recently purchased some software at a "Goodwill" store, copyright 1979, which included a plant encyclopedia, but I would still come here first. The software was purchased for other sections and not the encyclopedia.

Melody Or Terry are the ones to ask about PF, I think.

We debated over leaf shape and position when we put the foliage section in (years ago.) Ultimately we decided against including those terms because they're pretty complex to our typical PlantFiles reader/contributor, most of whom wouldn't be comfortable attempting to check off the correct descriptors, or be familiar enough with the terms to use them in identifying their plant.

The Plant ID forum is free, and is more user-friendly than attempting to identify a plant via PlantFiles.

Terry, as always, you are an angel - thank you!

Ehhhh, I'm not particularly angelic, especially early in the morning! But happy to help ;o)

Well, I currently taking Master Gardening classes. One of my classmates is doing a project on gardening websites and when I gave her my list. Dave's is number 1. It's great to see that out of a class of 30 plp the majority are organic gardeners and are always interested in this type of information. Great site, I love it!

Terry - especially early in the morning! - if coffee is needed, stop by anytime.

chuckle...thanks for the kind offer. But the trek from my bedroom to the coffee pot in the kitchen is almost too long some days!

Terry didn't mention that if we added the foliage description that *all* previous entries to PF would have to be gone back through and rechecked. A massive undertaking, and not for the faint of heart.

I would benefit from this extra info when trying to i.d. wildflowers and weeds, but can see that it might get problematic for the gardener who is having a tough time with 'genus' and 'species'.

We are constantly working on corrections of mis-checked information, but it is a labor of love. We have a totally unique database that is run by, and for, the average gardener. The 'techie folks' use it too, but it's a place where we've tried very hard to encourage everyone regardless of skill to contribute. It will fall a little short on both ends of the spectrum, but will ultimately do the greatest number of folks the most good.

Thank you everyone for your thoughts on this idea. Perhaps I side tracked it a bit at the beginning by bringing in the other blog and not just submitting the idea on its own.

It's easy for me to ask others to do some major work when I was thinking all that would be needed is a little code from Dave and a new simple set of very basic leaf descriptions added to a plant's page.

Certainly the terminology used to describe leaves is vast and can get rather obtuse. I thought it could be kept fairly simple and basic using the same pre-set choices given for all the other descriptive options for each plant. As the pages get viewed, people could check off the right choices.

The Plant Files data base as it exists is a testament to the knowledge that the "Average Gardener " has. I don't think basic leaf descriptions is going to throw too many of them into a horticultural tailspin. Have faith in their abilities.

ilima