Hi Dave and all,
My first three variety proposals are sitting in the tomato database queue and they present a quandary for me. I started talking to you (Dave) about this subject prior to accepting the role as a moderator. That is, integrity or quality of the data contained in the plant databases versus quantity. There are other plant databases out there, many are quite good, but I see potential at ATP for being the best one. Which is why I am interested in participating.
Anyway, a big problem that is happening at other sites (not to be named) is an almost frenzy or competition for who can introduce the most new varieties or make the most entries in databases. A lot of folks have egos that are stroked by this practice. And then there are the merchants who are unscrupulously renaming existing varieties in an effort to create new sales. Others are just blindly part of that process and sharing what they have obtained. Commercially there are laws regarding this but fairly unenforceable.
My hope in assuming a moderator position is to ensure that my contributions result in a useable tool, removing the clutter and errors, so that searching is more relevant and not so difficult that people give up and turn to search engines or other informational sources.
As I understand it, right now, people basically only have to submit a name and the moderator is expected to either approve or deny the submission. I would never put my name on an approval without performing due diligence so that I am not perpetuating a myth (or inadvertently creating one!). My personal and professional reputation is at stake. These are the current data points I see when I look at a pending proposal:
Add a new plant
Proposed by xxxxxxxxx
Genus: xxxxxxxx
Species:xxxxxxxx
Cultivar: xxxxxxxxx
Trade name:
Series:
Common name: xxxxxxxx
That means that armed with nothing more than a name, I either can be lazy and not caring, and click approve, which I see as being a huge disservice and very unprofessional, or I must take time (that I have very little of) to attempt to research the variety that may or may not exist to verify its validity.
Would it be possible to put the onus on the person submitting the proposed database addition and add required fields listing, Source (where they obtained it or where it is offered), History or Pedigree, and References (links to more information)?
I know that this may slow down the "growth" of the databases, but the actual quality will increase which will increase the reputation of ATP. I see this as critical if we are hoping to attract more professionals to participate in database moderation as well as more end-users of the site and its information.
Thoughts?
Mike
P.S. - I have to step away from the office for a bit so please don't take my lack of immediate response as disinterest. I will be back and will respond
