vitrsna said:
There is only one purpose for a database and that is to provide data and the obligation is to provide correct data. I see manipulation as a form of corruption of data in this case. So they go hand in hand, thumb in thumb. From my perspective, the thumbs add politics to the database in the form of leaving it open to manipulation (aka corruption of data). I don't believe this aspect has any place in a true database. If a database leaves itself open to manipulation (for example if someone wants to change the main thumbnail), then it is not a credible d/b. I think it is fine to be able to give thumbs and/or acorns to the database photos. I don't think it is fine that the thumbs and/or acorns are used to select the main thumbnail or the positions of the photos in the gallery.
This is a very interesting perspective Beverly, and I do see your point.
However, regarding the database images, I see the data as being the images themselves; whatever other data the image itself contains (camera/settings/watermark) if present; the submitter; and the date, location, and caption, if provided. The date submitted is also captured but not displayed.
This data set is not manipulated or corrupted or discredited in any way by the relative position of the image.
And, as you pointed out regarding image placement, "Anyone visiting the d/b can clearly view the gallery of photos and choose which ones to select for closer inspection." This is true. It is quite possible that the position of the image is irrelevant data.
And yet, as it is, the position of the images is a different set of data, reflecting both the relative timeline of submission for images without thumbs as well as the number of thumbs images with thumbs have received, which are clearly displayed beneath the images. You can even click on the number and see the members that thumbed the image.
This particular set of data is what it is. It is also not manipulated or corrupted or incorrect.
From your perspective, "the thumbs add politics to the database in the form of leaving it open to manipulation (aka corruption of data)."
From my perspective, the thumbs add a record to the database of specific members who click on the thumb thingy, for whatever reason.
Again, the data are what they are.
In fact, even when an image is "override" selected as the main thumbnail for a plant, the position of that image beneath the plant entry still reflects the number of thumbs it has received. There are images that are serving as the main thumbnail when they have fewer thumbs than other images and the position of those images as displayed within the gallery on the page does not change i.e. it is accurate according to the number of thumbs. Thus, the data are still what they are--nothing erroneous about it.
Now, the only thing I am aware of that is actually manipulated (aka corrupted) --on rare occasion-- is the override selection of an image to serve as the main thumbnail.
I have concluded that the selection of the main thumbnail is the point of contention that warrants discussion and hopefully resolution--both for the "bug pic" concerns as well as the general credibility issue raised by the inconsistency of some main thumbnails selected by Admin override while others are selected by the number of member thumbs (for whatever reason --politics? preference? religion? haha now I am just making an inappropriate joke--sorry).
Despite its potential to become whatever it has the potential to become, the ATP database is currently for all of us--the users of and contributors to the database. While it is a resource that provides data, it has many unique features that many members use extensively as a multi-functional tool to mine the data beyond the images alone. As such, the main thumbnail does have more significance and utility to us collectively than a random point of data.
I will wager that the majority of users and contributors do prefer to see a differentiating image in the main thumbnail (for example, if browsing iris cultivars under the letter 'T' brings up images of rhizomes and leaves it might not be as useful to differentiate among particular cultivars). For this reason, I think that the main thumbnail serves a function for us that every other image does not and that it is appropriate for the database to have an algorithm to select a "reasonably good" main thumbnail. The set-up for auto-selection of the main thumbnail is fairly elegant, overall, IMO, and generally results in the selection of good images, over time, to serve as the main thumbnail.
I don't think that the fact that the main thumbnail can change as more images are added to the data pool is a bad thing. With a crowd-sourced data pool as this is, the first image posted to the database for a particular plant may be the only one there is for a while, but it might not be the most useful image to serve as the main thumbnail forever (such as emerging growth or a bulb), so I see it as a good thing that members can give thumbs to new images and thus help to select new main thumbnails, rather than a corruption of the existing data.
Even when the main thumbnail is selected by Admin override, I don't really see it as a corruption of data per se. All of the data is still there unchanged, just the main thumbnail is made more consistent/useful/functional/appropriate/better/something? for users of the database.
For example
Rose (Rosa 'Therese Bugnet')
If you are searching medium-pink, shade tolerant roses, it is probably much more consistent/useful/functional/appropriate/better to have images of the bloom appear next to the cultivar names rather than an image of fall leaf color showing up for one rose, just saying! And the fact that an Administrator chose to select a good bloom picture for the main thumbnail does not corrupt the existing data or discredit the database in my perspective at all.
