When I look at my list of plants, I have to visually ignore the common names and although the list is in proper order by genus name, I wonder if others have to slow down because of this visual anomaly. Since they are in alphabetical order by genus, it's jarring in that if focused on the first letter, it's wildly NOT in alphabetical order. The eye has to move to a different spot for every plant name to gauge their position when scrolling down the page.

For those who don't think of most plants by their common names, I would love to see the common names after the botanical epithet, in the parentheses which more appropriately designates the significance of each, and makes a visually correct list to scroll through quickly.

Conversely, surely also many who primarily use the common names. If they were able to put their list in alphabetical order that way, it would be a lot more useful for them. On a few occasions, I've wanted to sort it that way when I remembered the common but not the botanical.

Thanks so much for reading and any consideration possible to be given to such an idea. This seems similar to sorting plant lists by "available to trade" that we discussed recently. I'm still hopeful to see that available sometime soon, if possible.
-T

I agree…I've gone back to my list several times…for research, or recommendations, or what have you…I also have to ignore the common name…The option would be great! Common names can differ greatly from one area to another…From one part of the country, or even one part of the world to another…Having the option to choose…Hmmm….I like that idea!

I agree. I primarily use botanical name and having to shift back and forth, rather than straight down, makes it more difficult.

I agree, I think that it would be good to be able to choose which name you want to appear first, the common or the scientific, and whichever one you choose should be in alphabetical order.

The "starred pages" list has a great feature, if you take the time to use it.

You can make up your OWN name for that post, or idea, or plant entry. Then you view the list alphabetically by your own, custom name.

Suppose you could choose among certain columns to display in your plant list.
Suppose you could choose which column to alphabetize on.
Suppose you could pick a second column to alphabetize any ties in the first column.

One column might be the Latin name, genus first.
One column might be the cultivar name.
One column might be the common name, whatever the database regards as the most common name.
One column might be the "database" name if there is one, like the Lettuce database, or the tomato database.
And one column might be your own custom name.

I think I would sort first on the "database" so that Tomatoes, Bok Choy and Lettuce would all group together. Then I would sort on approved cultivar name.

Others would probably pick Latin name (which already combines genus and species), then cultivar.

Often I would want to sort by one of the statuses, like "Available for Trade as Seeds" or a category name.

By sorting your list on "My Name", you could list plants the way you think of them - some you know by genus and cultivar name, some by a common name, and some might be sorted by location in your own garden ("North Fence", "Shade Bed 1", "Sidewalk Veggies")

I see what you are all saying and I agree with you about the "going back and forth" situation. I think the reason why make the names display the way they do is that this format follows the conventions used by other groups. It's been a while since I've looked into this but it seems that putting the common name in front or in the back isn't a requirement. I have no problem putting the latin name out first.

I typically alpha any plant list I create by latin name first, then common name -- for accuracy and as a means of further educating myself to learn the latin name. That said, I am OK with either name being the boss in My List.

Love the educating, Deb !!! Learning something new…Everyday!!!!

Hello everyone,
I had previously asked @dave to help me under tand the order in which plants are listed in the Database (not my own personal list); so here I am again, same question, different day.

The beautiful 'Brunnera Blooms' banner by @mcash70 led me to look at the Database for more information - to this page:
http://garden.org/search/index...

I still cannot figure out the order; it's not alphabetical no matter how I look at it. I know this is something I asked before, but I still cannot make my mind understand the logic.

The common names listed first are not in alphabetical order;
the botanical names listed second are not in botanical order;
the fancy names are not in alphabetical order.

Here is what I see:

-Heartleaf Brunnera (Brunnera macrophylla 'Emerald Mist'
-Siberian Bugloss #Brunnera macrophylla#
-Siberian Bugloss #Brunnera macrophylla 'Dawson's White'#
-Siberian Bugloss #Brunnera macrophylla 'Hadspen Cream'#
-Variegated Siberian Bugloss #Brunnera macrophylla 'Jack Frost'#
-Variegated Siberian Bugloss #Brunnera macrophylla 'Looking Glass'#
-Siberian Bugloss #Brunnera macrophylla 'Mr. Morse'#
-Siberian Bugloss #Brunnera macrophylla 'Spring Yellow'#
-Siberian Bugloss #Brunnera macrophylla 'Variegata'#
-Siberian Bugloss #Brunnera macrophylla 'Langtrees'#
-Siberian Bugloss #Brunnera macrophylla 'Betty Bowring'#
-Siberian Bugloss #Brunnera 'Blue Angel'#
-Gold Siberian Bugloss #Brunnera macrophylla 'Diane's Gold'#
-#Brunnera orientalis#
-#Brunnera sibirica#
-#Brunnera macrophylla 'King's Ransom'#
-Siberian Bugloss #Brunnera macrophylla 'Silver Wings'#
-Siberian Bugloss #Brunnera macrophylla 'Sea Heart'#
-Forget-Me-Not #Brunnera macrophylla 'Silver Heart'#
-Silver Siberian Bugloss #Brunnera macrophylla 'Alexander's Great'#

Also please, the second to last one listed, Forget-Me-Not #Brunnera macrophylla 'Alexander's Great'#
- shouldn't that say False Forget-Me-Not?
... I am slowly losing both my mind and my eyesight

See also:
http://myspecieslist.com/compl...
http://myfolia.com/plants/2682...

When I 'shop' on the internet, I am asked how I want to view the lists: price low to high, price high to low, by color, most popular, etc.; maybe the computer whiz Dave the Magnificent could figure a way to add a little button... so we can re-order the list 'botanical', 'common', 'cultivars', 'foliage color', 'flower color'...sorry, I got carried away for a minute

[Sorry, that was so wordy; I may be infected with a mild case of @RickCorey -its.]

Hi greene,
We have several search options but when I want to look at all the plants of a genus here's one way.

1. Do a simple search for Brunnera.
2. Open any entry, in this case the first plant on your list, Heartleaf Brunnera (Brunnera macrophylla 'Emerald Mist').
3. Click on the hyperlinked genus name Brunnera in the name field.
The list that will display is ordered alphabetically by botanical name, then alphabetically by cultivar name.

I feel really dumb, I can't understand the difference between these 2 searches. Is there another place to search that I'm missing? I click on plant database & type a genus name and always get the same seemingly unordered search results too. There's not always a thing at the top "see all plants in the genus." What else would I have wanted to see?

The most confusing one I've seen is searching "Sedum." Many of the results don't have the word Sedum at all (except as part of a larger word.) The top of the search results:

Stringy Stonecrop (Sedum sarmentosum)
Sedum (Hylotelephium telephium subsp. telephium)
Sedum (Sedum obtusipetalum subsp. obtusipetalum)
Sedum (Sedum albertii)
Sedum (Phedimus stoloniferus)
Stonecrop (Sedum mexicanum 'Lemon Ball')
(Petrosedum rupestre subsp. erectum)
Stonecrop (Petrosedum rupestre subsp. rupestre 'Angelina')

What kind of order is this?

Thank you!
That is another example of what I was saying. At least now I know I am not alone in this!
My fourth grade teacher Mrs Flook (yup, that's her name) would make a sad face if I turned in a paper ordered in this haphazard way.

There are two topics going on in this thread:

1) Should we change the way the names are displayed? That discussion is ongoing and really we should be discussing it in the Plants Database forum rather than Site Talk.

2) Why does the search display a different order than the various browsing tools? Specifically, why is the search not alphabetically ordered?

The answer to #2 is simple: search is different than browsing. Browsing is where you are given a list and you click through the list and view it. The list was prepared ahead of time and is tightly confined to exactly what is in the list. For example, "View all plants in the genus Solanum" is a list that was prepared ahead of time and the contents are shown alphabetically.

Now, when you do a search you are typing in whatever you want, and the system then digs into its database and tried to find what matches what you typed in. Then, it finds everything that matches and tries its best to give it to you NOT in alphabetical order, but rather in the order of what it thought is closest to what you searched for.

A non-ATP example here is dmoz.org, which is a website directory. You can search it for airplanes:

http://www.dmoz.org/search?q=a...

Note that it lists a bunch of websites, and they are not alphabetical. They are in some other order that is determined by their internal software. That is how searches always work.

But you can also browse their lists. Click on one of their categories up top, for example, this one:

http://www.dmoz.org/Shopping/R...

And now you see them all in alphabetical order. That's because you're now no longer search, but browsing a pre-prepared list.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the different between searching and browsing, and why we display things the way we do here at ATP.

To clarify for my feeble mind: Browsing is alphabetical and searching is best match?

Precisely.

Would it be frightfully difficult to add a "sort search results by ....." feature?

It would indeed by frightly difficult, but it's something that I may consider doing. The only real downside to that is that when you increase complexity of a system, you inevitably confuse some people. It's an unfortunate fact of software development. I intentionally made the search completely featureless for this reason: so people can just type in what they are looking for and the system will find it.

Heh, had a feeling that would be the answer. It would be nice, but I don't consider it a big priority.

Complicated systems often let a few experienced "power users" do more things after learning the ropes, but occasional users may find that "the opportunities were insurmountable", and give up before becoming experienced.

I appreciate the response, but I still feel confused. How are search results that don't match the searched word more relevant? And how are others finding what they were searching in a list of results with no order? What am I doing wrong?