Earlier this morning I emailed Dave with a question related to the ability to change cultivar data in the database here are ATP. He suggested I post what I wrote so we could discuss it here. I agree, this not only relates to my question but also any data changes that could be made by members in the database. Below is my post to Dave....

Hi Dave,
I've been adding some images to the database of the sculpted dl's from this summer. While doing this I'm noticing many images I have are of cv's not in the database as sculpted. This is not a fault of ATP, the AHS registrations are not reflecting many older ones previously registered that are sculpted due to the acceptance of the form in 2010 and a hybridizers lack of correcting their registrations to reflect the change for various reasons. While researching/studying these forms, I collected a list of several hundred sculpted forms and verified the majority thru growers, hybridizers and the Sculpted form committee. For a long time I have been conflicted about changing the data related to cv's even though it appears to be a part of ATP to do so. I think I have settled it in my mind that I would not be changing an official registration made by a hybridizer with the registrar, something I am not allowed or even would be willing to do, but changing the data to reflect advances in the registration process in an unofficial database/information site. My own database of these forms follows the same way and is a source for the many requests I receive for these forms. The benefits of which allows those looking for these forms to find them online and gives a true representation of the cv's involved. Hope I'm making sense.
What I need to know is....would this be something you would be in favor of seeing done or do you want the ATP database to only show the official registration info? Changes would be made only to ones I am certain of, add images where I can and take into consideration images already posted which may not show sculpted traits as to if I should change the data. One example is the cv Chittagong (Munson 1973) one of the earliest. There would be no way to officially change this registration as Mr. Munson is no longer here. The image in the database shows sculpted pleated form which is what my information also confirms. This would be a project that will take some time to complete...I have a long winter ahead up here to work on it!

I think this would be valuable information to add to the daylily database. How would that be done. Would it show as being sculpted with a drop down for a short explanation on why it is not registered as being sculpted?

Thanks for posting this, Char!

Char said:What I need to know is....would this be something you would be in favor of seeing done or do you want the ATP database to only show the official registration info? Changes would be made only to ones I am certain of...

My thinking is that the kind of database we have here lends itself perfectly to collaboration among people who know a lot about their specific areas of interest. That means we can share what we know. The rust information is another good example of having information in our database that isn't present anywhere else.

I'm of the opinion that more is almost always better than less.

Just because AHS is missing information, or has wrong information, does not mean that we should feel obligated to perpetuate those errors.

So, if we're voting here, I'd vote that you proceed and mark those plants appropriately regardless of what the AHS has. But others here may feel differently so I want to give them a chance to hear the idea and weigh in with their own thoughts.

dave said:My thinking is that the kind of database we have here lends itself perfectly to collaboration among people who know a lot about their specific areas of interest. That means we can share what we know.I'm of the opinion that more is almost always better than less. Just because AHS is missing information, or has wrong information, does not mean that we should feel obligated to perpetuate those errors. So, if we're voting here, I'd vote that you proceed and mark those plants appropriately regardless of what the AHS has.

I totally agree!

I also agree! This is excellent info to add for future search purposes. I have requested that people add things like 'bud builder' or 'early morning opener' as they experience these traits in their garden or from details gleaned from the hybridizer's websites.

Yeah.

Char, I think we have our answer!

I'm glad we had this discussion as this kind of thing comes up from time to time.

This is great news! I've wrestled with the ethical side of changing the info in my own mind for some time, but also feel that a database is only as good as the information it provides. Correcting the info for sculpted form will make this the most complete database source for the sculpted forms currently available on the web. Thank you for the support... I'll be sending data changes to Sue shortly

valleylynn said:I think this would be valuable information to add to the daylily database. How would that be done. Would it show as being sculpted with a drop down for a short explanation on why it is not registered as being sculpted?

But has Lynn's question been answered?

I would think it important on how it is addressed.

We have a checkbox for "Sculpted" and I don't think it needs an explanation.

Well, our database is designed for gardeners, not a strict outline like the AHS registrations. Although they have updated and now include sculpting designations, (there have been additional updates throughout the years), in my opinion, it's not something that really needs an answer or explanation within a database entry as to why more details are now included beyond the registration. I think most people would understand these types of extra details reflected are being added by growers of these plants

Dave & I posted at the same time, his is short and sweet!