Thanks Dirt and Calif-Sue for your comments.

Dirt, when i mentioned seeing <<some of those photos on the front page>> or something to that effect, i was referring to your magnificent photos of the hummingbird and plant. In this case the hummingbird does not in anyway detract from the plant and i know how difficult it is to get good hummer photos so i think one of these would be nice to share with the ATP community. Of course a Monarch and flower would be nice too, and the Liatris is stunning.

I think my problem here is that i don't know what people mean when they refer to the "thumbnail" or "main thumbnail". I've been thinking those are the photos from database entries that show up on the first page? but then what would be the "main thumbnail"?

Personally, i favor the idea of a separate bug database over a pollenator d/b that is somehow connected to the Plant d/b. The Plant d/b could add an info line (if it doesn't have one already) for what pollenates a particular plant and the pollenator & flower photos would be in the Plant d/b. A bug d/b wouldn't have to show photos of the new bugs added. Instead there could be a small section of "New Bugs Added" and just list the name of the new bugs. Then people who are interested can look them up or be linked to the bug d/b if they want to see the bug photos. Are we forever to go to DG for our bug information? Also, my experience has been that ATP has some finely qualified bug identifiers. DG has Flapdoodle and C.A. Ivy who are excellent and learned but they are not professionals, and there are additional people who pop up from time to time because they recognize a particular bug.

Robin, I am sorry you felt bad about the flow of conversation with that thread, it really was quite interesting and even though you felt your initial idea was shot down, that was not the case. Members and Dave were going back and forth with input and ideas and eventually, Dave may have come up with some kind of a reasonable idea to make everyone happy.
We wished you had left your posts in that thread, it ended up not making any sense for any future input from other members. Oh well. If you ever feel that way again, perhaps a better way to remove yourself is to un-watch the thread entirely, I have done that myself and believe me, it often feels pretty good! Or stick a butterfly shot in and then un-watch it.

And example of what I mean by main thumbnail, (for any unsure what thumbnails are, images in any entry are considered thumbnails, or smaller versions of the original image) .I selected the echinacea database since that is the current theme week. You can see the main thumbnail for each entry in the list, some may not have any thumbs-up, rather, they were the first images submitted, others were 'thumbed up' into their first position. If you scan down, you will see several bee and butterfly shots in the #1 main thumbnail positions, all fantastic and entirely appropriate as the blooms are still evident!
http://garden.org/plants/brows...

And gallery is just what you select when you add an image, this is the current selection:

What kind of image is this?

Entire plant
Bloom
Fruit
Cone
Leaves
Stem, scape, stalk or bark
Thorns
Roots
Bulb
Seeds
Seed pods or heads
Seedlings (newly germinated plants)
Emerging Growth
Closeup of buds, sepals and receptacles
Stamens, filaments and pistils
Bract
Habitat view
Documentation
Winter Interest

I enjoy your photos, Beverly!

Since I prefer to grow plants that will attract and feed the pollinators and other insects, I really like seeing a photo added to the database with a bee or butterfly on it. It's like a 'flag' for me to look further into whether that plant can grow in my area, or if I might like to grow it. But, I realize and understand that I'm in a minority group.

That's why I like hanging out in this forum with all the other bug people.

vitrsna said:I agree Ann, that is one adorable frog. At first i wasn't sure if it was real or decor. I guess they eat flies? hopefully mosquitos? and what else?

They eat bugs, as far as I can tell any bug that gets within range of them. They do eat a LOT of moths. They will also eat beetles & other hard shelled type of bugs.

Dirt you are a good researcher to be able to resurrect that old Gulf Fritillary multi-photo. And just look at that old bfly still looking fresh as ever. I wasn't able to name the photos because i took the Ruellia from the rancho of a friend. It was growing wild there so it never got into the database because i can't be certain of the species. Too bad there is not a "sp.?" option.

Robin, i am sorry to hear you deleted your participation in that thread. I thought at the time it was one of those "thinking out-loud" conversations where people are trying to figure out how something can work to the benefit of all members and not muck up the system in the process, so i'm sorry you felt badly about it. I think it was really a compliment to you that Dave and Horntoad and Sue were giving this subject consideration by voicing the pros, cons, and possibilities. I left the thread (i don't even remember where the thread is now) because the decision makers were involved and i had already participated by expressing my thoughts at the time.

Calif Sue...thanks for explaining about "main thumbnails", let me see if i have this right. There are "main thumbnails" for each d/b entry category(gallery), and the main thumbnail images are selected as such because they have the most thumbs? And these main thumbnails are the images that appear in the database? and later on the front page circulating as <<recent plant d/b entries>>? Is this correct? or am i getting warmer?

wildflowers said:That's why I like hanging out in this forum with all the other bug people.

Here's the frog I keep seeing in my garden(s) and all around the pond. I think its called a Leopard Frog.

This one was at the pond's edge.

vitrsna said: ... and the main thumbnail images are selected as such because they have the most thumbs?

Yes, I know what you meant, but it just sounded funny!

Does anyone have an ID for that lovely green frog?

Christine, I'm with you kiddo, and the beauty of Dirt's thread is that we learn maybe we are not such a minority as we thought we were. "Dirtdorphins and the Bee Butts"...sounds like an indy music group has brought this conversation to the forefront and to the attention of the decision makers and this is significant. You know what else? When i am looking at the flower and garden photos on the front page and there is not one bite taken out of any leaf, i become verrrrry suspicious about what that gardener is up to

Ann...it looks to me like your frog might like a burger

Christine...that is one beautiful frog and such a good photo. I also agree that pollenators prefer wildflowers. I believe the wildflowers are more nectar rich because they have not been altered. I've seen this in action. People here are always asking me "why do you grow weeds?" (only in spanish) and i tell them because the bugs like them best and they leave scratching their heads.

Critter...i see what you mean. It does sound funny looking at it this way. Maybe it is funnier than we think because maybe it is all wrong what i think

Ah, the hummingbird was enjoying the Agastache rupestris
I will keep trying for a shot without powerlines...it's not easy...maybe next year...

Well, since we are talking about it here now and I have more thoughts...
Larger issues--
All Things Plants is *plants* and wildly successful in that regard
I really think that the database should remain focused on that and that diversifying into a proper bug database as well is an idea fraught with many inherent problems and pitfalls, way beyond the scope of all-things-plants.
and yet we all have bugs...
I am not familiar with DG's bug files or the bug info or bug folks there--what is it like?

Perhaps we could have a second page, or something, you know like where it says there are some number of more images of this plant click here to view them...maybe there could be a bug page -click here- and hence a bug category to submit bug images associated with a particular plant, maybe the generic plant entry?
Although the interweb is full of images and bug data, I think it could be very helpful to have images of a variety of plant associated bugs at our fingertips, here on ATP. For example, say I'm a newbie and something is eating my tomatoes and I have no earthly idea what it could be but I look up tomatoes and click on the bug page and voilà! there could be images of hornworms and leaf-footed bugs and whatever else eats tomatoes--squirrels? sorry I don't really know whatall eats tomatoes. But if there were such images available there, then I would suddenly have info. And of course discussion threads could be linked there and the Pests and Diseases forum and the Insect and Bug ID forum. As it is right now, it is quite a bit more cumbersome to find out what might be eating tomatoes here if you don't know where to look...just saying, and this is just one example.
In the same vein, I would find it particularly helpful to have photos in the database of other 'problems' with plants too, because a picture is worth a thousand words, or something like that. How cool would it be to have images of root rot, cholorsis, black spot, rust, wilt, spring-sickness, various viral and bacterial diseases, etc., etc. associated with particular plants readily available and then links to discussions and other info about them? As it is now, most images like that on this site are buried in threads, even we even have them at all.
So maybe a subcategory for images of bugs and 'abnormal' could actually be fairly useful to a wide audience even if they are not pretty images or considered suitable to 'represent the plant' as the thumbnail.

--Beverly, as Sue already explained, but here again, the main thumbnail is the first image in the list of all the images of a particular plant, the image that appears at the top of the page for that particular plant, and the image that appears to the left of the plant name in a search or browse page. In most cases it is the image with the most thumbs. Sometimes it isn't because it has been selected by Admin to be the main thumbnail.
so, for example, your photo here

is the main thumbnail and will show on the left when browsing all Pentas. Good one
Only recently submitted pictures appear on the homepage.

Anyway, back to the issue of the dadgummed thumbnail...
as I already said, yes, I want to see pretty pics that are good representations of the plant as the thumbnail! No question there.
I just went and 'voted for' some other images to put a good representation of Karl Foerster in position as the thumbnail and boot out the winter scene (I don't know if that's the only one that bonehead may have been referring to but at least I took care of that one ) And I like the fact that they are dynamic and can change Although I have noticed that some of the images selected as the static thumbnail in the overide mode might benefit from another look see...

But, here is the question, should database photos of a plant be limited to thumbnail contenders?
Officially, the answer is no. Clearly, because we do have all these other categories or 'galleries', i.e. roots, for each plant. So technically, the set up or design of the database is not necessarily supposed to be limited to a collection of perfect bloom photos, yet sometimes it seems as though that is the emphasis, particularly when folks are worried about the dadgummed thumbnails.
And the phenomenon that Sue was talking about

Calif_Sue said:
What I said was, and I am quoting my post, "The only thing I don't like about the idea of adding bug shots to an entry is members tend to give new photos or interesting photos lots of thumbs-ups and I don't think a critter photo should become the main representative thumbnail photo for any given plant."
I like bug shots in entries, others do too and people tend to give them many thumbs up without ever even opening up the plant entry and they can then becomes the main thumbnail, the main image one sees when scrolling though the database.

just happened with this picture

Personally, I think it is a great shot, but I don't think it is the best pic to represent the plant as the thumbnail. And here we are with this photo as the thumbnail.
I'm not really preoccupied with the thumbnails in the database and don't find it particularly off-putting if the thumbnail doesn't meet my specifications but I am sensitive to the fact that others are concerned about the thumbnails.
And full circle--I don't really know the answer to this problem. On the one hand I wrestle with whether to submit photos or not because of this very issue. I have many great bee pics, as most of you know, that will never go in the database because they are all about the bees and not really about the plants. And I don't mind. But every once in a while I am just so enamored of one that I do put it in the database--like that one--and now I am feeling guilty about even submitting it, which is crazy.

so
go 'vote for', aka 'thumb', some other echie pictures?

"Dirtdorphins and the Bee Butts" ♪♫

vitrsna said:I also agree that pollenators prefer wildflowers. I believe the wildflowers are more nectar rich because they have not been altered. I've seen this in action. People here are always asking me "why do you grow weeds?" (only in spanish) and i tell them because the bugs like them best and they leave scratching their heads.

I absolutely agree.

And that's the same attitude I get here in Pittsburgh - though most assuredly NOT in Spanish!

wildflowers said:
That's why I like hanging out in this forum with all the other bug people. Hurray! Thumbs up Thank You!

Calif_Sue said:Robin, I am sorry you felt bad about the flow of conversation with that thread, it really was quite interesting and even though you felt your initial idea was shot down, that was not the case. Members and Dave were going back and forth with input and ideas and eventually, Dave may have come up with some kind of a reasonable idea to make everyone happy.
We wished you had left your posts in that thread, it ended up not making any sense for any future input from other members. Oh well. If you ever feel that way again, perhaps a better way to remove yourself is to un-watch the thread entirely, I have done that myself and believe me, it often feels pretty good! Or stick a butterfly shot in and then un-watch it.

thanks, Sue. I think people's ideas are still there and make perfect sense without my comments, so I don't think anything is lost. Another thought might be for the moderator of this forum to ask Dave to pull out the relevant comments from this thread and add them to that discussion and continue it there, if that's possible, but of course it's up to others whether they want to just continue the thread here.

Whenever I have a sticky problem, I back out and ask myself the question:

What is the question?

Generally, this to me means, "what brought this idea or thing or enterprise into existence?"

In this case, ATP has two things going on:
1) A community of gardeners and people who enjoy reading about / seeing gardening things.
2) A real, live, actual DATAbase about plants

So...one of the neat things about plants is their relationship to their ecosystem. For example, one of the neat things (read DATA) about the milkweed is that it's necessary for Monarchs. One of the not-so-neat things about roses is that aphids love them. BUT...that's part of your life if you're a rose, so...it's DATA about roses (the notion that aphids live on 'em, I mean).

So, in my opinion, if you want to have a robust database about PLANTS (this is AllThingsPlants, right?) their associated buggycritterythingies are DATApoints. And, after an infinite number of pictures posted with the buggycritterypollenator-ey things are posted with/for each plant, you have a fantastic dataset - that's broader and more informative than the one we have now.

With the caveat that I don't care about the thumbnails (apart from saying that sometimes buggies or birdies or whatever are appropriate if they don't detract), here's what I suggest:

Come up with a (better titled) field in the database for associated critters (including pollinators, pests, symbiotic friends, consumers, etc.) and add that to the database. If, in time, it turns out that you'd like to have finer resolution, those categories could be split out fairly easily later.

I'm not a fan of having a separate bug database. That's not our core business here. Others do it better and have pretty mature sites on that front. But I am a fan of critters with particular plants. And I think that having one more field in the database would meet those needs without taking the focus (hah!) away from the given plant...nor the core business (read purpose - numbers one and two above) of the site.
----
@catmint (sorry, tagged crittergarden at first - dang c-names confused my addled brain) please knock it off with the doubts!! your posts are informative and fantastic and you're danged bright and insightful. And even if you're wrong on occasion (not saying you were in that case - this is a conceptual comment), you're allowed to be. I kinda like being wrong because it gives me a chance to change my mind and get it right next time. I like your posts and ideas. Keep 'em coming

@evermorelawnless

Hey, I have my own doubts!

Well said Asa

Robin, I think your original thread in the plant database forum has disappeared altogether now, so it looks like whatever discussion is here now anyway, with the lovers of buggycritterythingies

I have a variety pack of bees I'm working on to share with you all, but in the meantime,
What do ya'all think of these?


I'm feeling fairly enamored

OMG!
5 minutes ago I saw the FIRST Monarch of the year in my garden!

I continue to support the idea of a separate d/b for insects, and i mean separate and not connected to the plant files in any way as dirtdorphin suggests. Already we have material for it from the Bugs ID forum although i don't know how far back in time that forum goes.

If i understand @Calif_Sue correctly, there is a main thumbnail image for each gallery of each plant on the database although i have not found evidence of this when viewing d/b photos. Maybe adding a "pollenators" gallery would be sufficient.

I have never known about how thumbs affect the d/b and the process appears overly complicated. It is also subject to corruption and manipulation in terms of the placement of an image. Why anyone would bother to do this is beyond my ability to understand. I think the d/b should be simplified and the use of thumbs should discontinue as a criterion for the placement of images. Perhaps it could be replaced by a simple rotation. Perhaps it can just be discontinued. Anyone visiting the d/b can clearly view the gallery of photos and choose which ones to select for closer inspection.