I am confused about the designation of whether a flower is showy or insignificant. Is this just an opinion, or is there some criteria to be applied? Whenever I see a plant with an insignificant bloom designation I am reminded of "Horticulture" magazine, which I have always found a bit hoity-toity (good information but often given with an overly superior attitude).

I think Showy means you grow it for the pretty flowers. Hibiscus, Roses, Daylilies, etc.

Insignificant blooms are those plants that, while they do bloom, you rarely even notice the blooms. Oak trees, willows, things like that.

So, it is really just a judgment call, then? I personally can't think of an insignificant flower - I find great pleasure in the really tiny ones that surprise you, often with strong fragrance or just their peek-a-boo nature. Can both showy and insignificant be checked for a single entry? I often run across entries which are tagged as insigificant, which I disagree with (sometimes I've noted that in the comment section, but not always). Maybe insignificant is the wrong term? Or, perhaps this is a redundant category since we already have the bloom size as one of the properties? Or, I'm just the only one stumped by this...and I can certainly get over it!

It is a subjective criterion, and I agree that the tiniest and least conspicuous blooms can be quite lovely sometimes. I think it's contradictory to enter both "showy" and "insignificant," so I think you should just change the description to "showy" if you find them "significant." Adding a comment to explain the charm of the blooms is always a good idea, of course.

Aha - inconspicuous is a much better term than insignificant, which strikes me as a negative. No matter, though, I will just add comments when I think a flower has been slighted.

I agree, Deb. "Insignificant" sounds dismissive. Maybe it would be better to change the wording in that particular databox so that we could describe blooms as either "showy" or "inconspicuous."

I like that idea, and think it is actually more descriptive. The sarcoccoco flower, for example, is quite inconspicuous but its fragrance can be very significant!

Inconspicuous makes more more sense,

I made the change!

Thanks, Dave.