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" ♪♫
