Who weeds the images and how many is too many?

For a review

of some previous input on this topic, see the Data Points comments.

The solution(s) might have to wait until after BugGuide 2.0 arrives. John VanDyk commented on BG 2.0 here (point "E") but I don't know whether there's been further news.

… Robin McLeod, 2 May, 2008 - 8:38pm

Weeded based on data points?

the more I realise this topic has merit.

We do need photos as far as data points are concerned.

I think photos should be weeded based on the data points.

Example: If 50 photos of an adult Odonata sp. exist for a data point in My Town, Pennsylvania, do we really need 50 photos showing the same particular view? 50 photos of various lifecycles and views (lateral, mating, eggs, etc.) OK, I'll give you that. But 50 dorsal views? A half dozen should be enough for ID. Beyond that, given the data point, only photos showing certain behaviors or certain characteristics should be accepted.

Perhaps if someone had time.. and I could do this during the winter when bug season is over for me.. and if we get a concensus.. someone could bring up the photos in a particular data point and weed out the unncessary ones that way.

But that's just a thought as I can't think of any other way to weed photos beyond the way they are currently frassed, even if they contribute a data point.

… bugguy91, 2 May, 2008 - 12:58pm

Too Much For Me

I'm weeding myself out of here. I apologise for everything I might have unknowingly done wrong.

… Kenneth Dwain Harrelson, 2 May, 2008 - 2:06am

BugGuideDatabase

Although there's been much history and discussion, I'm not convinced a "problem" exists. Maybe I don't use BigGuide as much as others and maybe the luxury of a cable modem blinds me to some of the "problem". Kevin's description of his experience of "browsing the guide" expresses a concern that seems a bit idle. Was he, in truth, trying to identify a specimen? Nonetheless, people seem to be having difficulty. Is the difficulty with the function and organization of BugGuide, or is it with us as individuals?

Thank You Jay
Thanks Jay for stickin' with us and lending your expertise and passion. I hope people will take the time to look into your vision. I think I see what you're suggesting. #1) I've never seen a representative checkbox (I'm not an editor) but this seems like the most substantial of your suggestions. I just hope that anyone trying to identify their anomalous specimen will find success. #2) I use the "Images" tab quite a bit. Not having the "Browse" and "Images" tabs side-by-side (somewhat) would be the biggest hardship for me but I would suffer the extra clicks. I don't have another suggestion for a name change. I don't see the rational for moving the tab. I use images for identification and then look-up the information (left to right). #3) Again, I see the logic of your suggestion. I think it would make BugGuide harder to use but not for me. #4) I use the "Images" tab quite a bit; I just hope the "representative" bit isn't too restrictive. That we have an "Images" tab (apart from a "Browse" tab) just seems brilliant to me. #5) Don't really know what you mean by "untouched"

Its kinda funny to me how superficial these suggestions seem. BugGuide wouldn't be changed, how people perceive and interact with BugGuide would be. I just hope that any changes are tasteful and objective and not idiosyncratic. (Suggestion for BG 2.0: "Elevation" field for submissions.)

Inclusive
I guess I come down on the inclusive-database side. If people want to "tidy-up" BugGuide consider these redundant submissions (click on image to see copyright holder):

and these redundant images (same contributor, different time and place; he did it twice):

. I'm not criticizing that these submissions were made or retained, the question is who's gonna frass 'em? They don't even add a data point.

There's lots of images of bugs because there's lots of bugs and lots of sexual dimorphism, age-related appearance differences, color morphs, geographic variation etc., etc...and I suppose because people submit inappropriate stuff.

To Answer Kevin's Question
Editors frass submissions or contributors frass their own submissions. Even though I trend toward including the database, I have good images I've not submitted because of a degree of redundancy; its just not a priority for me or BugGuide. Such restraint has been mentioned in earlier threads.

I suggest we can have both guide and database.

… David Moll, 30 April, 2008 - 5:59pm

A little history

Evidently you didn’t look at the date when those Luna moth images were posted: February 16, 2004. Troy Bartlett, the creator of this site, posted them along with perhaps 2000 of his excellent photos and along with a number of Info pages and taxonomic tree pages and a number of other features that made the framework of this site. In other words, that was the day in which Bugguide was born and made available to all of us. I wouldn’t dream of frassing any of Troy’s images. I feel immense gratitude and respect for his invaluable creation.

… Beatriz Moisset, 2 May, 2008 - 1:19pm

One of My Points Exactly

Among other things, I just thought we might treat submissions (and each other) with some of the respect we reserve for ... fill in the blank. Sorry if my approach was too abstract.

Correction: "They don't even add a data point." should be "One image from each time-location is sufficient to register the data point."

… David Moll, 2 May, 2008 - 10:34pm

Here, here!

Couldn't have said it better.

… bugguy91, 2 May, 2008 - 1:24pm

Those Photos of Troy's are pe

Those Photos of Troy's are perfect examples of what a "good" photo is. And I'm sure Troy would agree. Each also deserves being a representative.

Blurred backgrounds, busy backgrounds, all those photographic quality terms don't hold any weight here. This isn't a photo clinic nor is this a photography website. And that's the problem I have. Using phrases like these is what leads to elitism and photo "standards". The next thing you know, only photos of bugs are allowed by those that are seasoned photographers or have studios, and that's not going to happen.

BugGuide.net is a community. Jsut because someone has access to high end photography equipment doesn't mean only their photos should be representatives. The everyday Joe or Jane with a point & shoot equally deserves their photo being a representative as long as the subject can be seen clearly enough and ID'd. Most importantly, the insects are photographed by people who take their time to contribute. And as such, those fine people deserve their photos treated equally as anyone else, not based on how good of a photographer they are. The fact that someone can upload their photo and have it part of the online collection is what makes BugGuide! This is the community spirit of BugGuide. Even if that bug in the photo can't be ID'd to Genus or species. It's still a valuable contribution to what BuGuide is all about. This is also why each and every photo is equally important.

What makes a photo "good" is whether or not the subject can be identified, period. Doesn't matter if it's on a blurry background, a smooth background, if the bug is covered in mud, if a branch obstructs partial view of the bug, whatever the case may be.

We must not discriminate or judge! Since there is not 1 single photo that can be a perfect representative of any one single insect, they all need to be representatives. The photos shows various behaviors, they show various angles and views of the bug, they show various habitats, they show various lifecycles, and on and on and on.

Photo representatives should remain random.

We don't need to start censoring photos based on superficial qualities.

BugGuide.net is unlike other photography websites. This isn't about showing off one's skills. We are all here for one common purpose - to have our photos ID'd, to contribute known ID's to the databse, while adding to the ever growing collection. That's it, cut and dry. We must make sure we do not become a Flikr website!

That's my 2 cents on the matter.

David, you are right - there is nothing wrong with BugGuide. It just "works" and has been, ever since I've been here since 2005.

… bugguy91, 1 May, 2008 - 10:40am

Wow...

Paul, until more is known about the long-term effects of Ecstasy usage, you should slow down just a bit.

I'm not complaining that poor quality photos are present here. I'm not saying they should be frassed. I'm not saying they should never be seen. My complaint is that poor quality photos are being displayed on the Info and Browse pages, which are meant to be accessed when a visitor is trying to identify their own bugs without having to sign up as a member and submit an image to ID Request. You'll never find a field guide where every photo looks like that ratty, old female luna that Troy posted.

There's no reason to delete identifiable photos just because they are of poor quality, but there are plenty of reasons to place the best photos in clear view.

Your statement:

   "We are all here for one common purpose - to have
   our photos ID'd, to contribute known ID's to the
   databse, while adding to the ever growing collection.
   That's it, cut and dry."

is incorrect. Check the numbers here and here. Less than 18,000 total user accounts created in the last four years; less than 500 were active in the last week. Let's be very generous and assume 2,000 active users in April that were capable of the "common purpose". Compare that to the number of unique visitors listed for the same month: over 180,000. Over 98% of our visitors are here trying to find stuff. And you want them to see this as our standard just because it's identifiable?

From your other post: "Not saying we shouldn't have palps, but I don't know who would be able to start embarking on that daunting task."

I am. Tony Thomas is doing some close-up work also, and getting very good at it.

… Jay Barnes, 2 May, 2008 - 1:49am

Another thing

"More than just a clearinghouse for information, this site helps expand on the natural histories of our subjects. By capturing the place and time that submitted images were taken, we are creating a virtual collection that helps define where and when things might be found."

If someone uploads an image of a "ratty old female" Luna Moth, it deserves to be a representative of the species.

Why? Because it is an "old female".

… bugguy91, 2 May, 2008 - 2:35pm

You missed a couple

from the "Submit image" page:

"Please do not even bother to submit images that do not clearly show the specimen[...]"
"Crop your image so the bug fills the frame."

Anyway, so this morning you agreed with me, but now you think everything should be representative.

You've been here quite awhile, but I suspect you might not understand the special meaning of "representative" as it applies to the BugGuide software. I described it pretty clearly above, but here I will add screenshots.

This is what I see when I upload or edit an image. Note the highlighted text also:

And this is what I see when I edit an Info page:

… Jay Barnes, 2 May, 2008 - 6:15pm

I'm not trying to argue or be

I'm not trying to argue or be contrary for the sake of being contrary.

My thought processes often evolve, and I understand completely about having a few images appear as representatives. I just wonder when it comes to various lifecycles, colorations, how do you make those representatives as well?

For instance - if I want to identify butterfly eggs, and I go to the monarch butterfly guide, will only adult monarch butterflies appear as representative images? will various stages of life and behaviors appear as well?

… bugguy91, 3 May, 2008 - 5:43pm

I agree, there should be only

I agree, there should be only a few "quality" photos that represent a particular species when someone is looking for an ID. As long as no other photos are frassed (edited in).

All I was getting at is that this place revolves around the photos, and that if it were not for the photos there would be no website. In my opinion. That's all I was getting at! I wasn't trying to discount the other portions of the website or anything else, nor was I trying to speak for everyone.

And yes, I noticed your work, with regards to palps, and that's great stuff. As well as the work of Tony Thomas.

… bugguy91, 2 May, 2008 - 8:09am

A different view of BG

Paul McNealis wrote
"We are all here for one common purpose - to have our photos ID'd, to contribute known ID's to the databse (sic), while adding to the ever growing collection. That's it, cut and dry."

"Cut and dry"? That may be your "2 cents on the matter" but it's not mine. Perhaps change your "We are" to "I am"

I believe BG if far more than what you state, take a look at the tabs: Forums, Taxonomy, Info, Links, Books, Data

… A.W. Thomas, 1 May, 2008 - 3:11pm

Of course!

I'm sorry for not stating the scientific/educational value gained. I just thought that was assumed and goes without saying , espeically from the moment the photo was added.

… bugguy91, 1 May, 2008 - 3:24pm

Mea culpa

> David, you are right - there is nothing wrong with BugGuide. It just
> "works" and has been, ever since I've been here since 2005.

I guess I am just looking for something with a somewhat more serious approach to species identification, etc. (thinking here specifically of spiders). I see very little being done in this area (very few images of the palps or epigyne), many IDs going unanswered, and little interaction (with the exception of a couple hardy souls -- but, I must add, there is some good material here that folks have spent quite some time on -- for example the article on the spider eye configurations -- and, with respect to the spiders at least, the site already is a "Flickr site".

One site that I would like to mention (with respect to spiders) is The Canadian Arachnologist (both a database using excellent software and also a discussion forum): http://www.canadianarachnology.org/. Canadian-based, but with a North American approach. Things are a bit slow there, right now, but I think I will be spending more time there, as I prefer more of a specialist approach (and miss having a forum just for spider discussions). For those interested in European spiders, I can heartily recommend the Forum mitteleuropäischer Spinnen, http://spinnen-forum.de/ -- my model for an almost perfect spider forum, where a request for ID will quickly bring 2-4 responses from very serious amateurs and semi-professionals (paradise, for casual amateurs like myself).

-Kevin

… Kevin Pfeiffer, 1 May, 2008 - 11:08am

Spiders and arachnologist editors.

One of the big problems here has been the 'territoriality' of our arachnid experts. I have been personally attacked for moving images, even to family level, by at least one of the other editors. Then, the arachnologist editors often don't do that work themselves! I still move the occasional image because I am 'not' a complete idiot with respect to arachnids, but there has been considerable friction that has been off-putting to other editors as well. Until we get regular, professional help, our spider pages will continue to languish in the morass you so eloquently describe. Sorry, but I am at wit's end with the belligerence of some of our spider editors (present company, Kevin, excluded I'm sure).

… Eric R. Eaton, 1 May, 2008 - 12:49pm

You have to be joking. The l

You have to be joking. The last big problem I saw was you, last winter, when you were moving spiders to the wrong pages all over the place, both at the family and species level. And since you don't subscribe to the images you post messages to, you probably weren't aware of all the corrections that were being made.

Then you made an unsubstantiated claim about being personally attacked in an e-mail by one of the spider guys. I simply don't believe a word of this. You need to post the unaltered content of this e-mail. I want to see it. Otherwise I can only assume you are making false accusations.

… Jay Barnes, 2 May, 2008 - 1:56am

What I know & no "Mea Culpa" necessary

Kevin, nothing wrong with what you are looking for. And I'm not an expert, nor an editor. What I say in a comment is just my opinion, nothing more.

This place is basically run by volunteers. There are some scientific experts and such, but again, it's not like every kind of insect expert is here and can update every photo and image. And those experts are also limited in time and resources.

Many ID's go unanswered in Spiders because, apparently to me and a basic assumption, we don't have many spider experts. If we did, i am sure there would be more ID's. I think this is a safe assumption to make.

Photographing the palps requires high magnification, correct? Can a point & shoot camera reveal the details of a palp necessary for ID? There might be equipment limit there as far as who can upload those images. Not only that, but photos of palps requires a lot of dead specimens. I don't think me, or many of the "regulars", or newbies for that matter, plan on photographing individual inset body parts closeup. I think someone with a collection, or another dedicated Spider specialist would need to come here and provide those images and that expertise. Not saying we shouldn't have palps, but I don't know who would be able to start embarking on that daunting task.

… bugguy91, 1 May, 2008 - 11:26am

I wouldn't frass them, but th

I wouldn't frass them, but the representative checkbox should be unchecked on all seven of them. They really aren't very good, and I'm sure Troy would agree. (Same deal with Kenneth's Viceroy photo. The background on that one is way too busy.)

This means they won't show up in the Luna Moth Browse tab, and won't be one of the images displayed at random at the top of any Info page. Here's another one that definitely wouldn't belong on the Info page. Mine.

Too busy, so the subject doesn't stand out from a smooth background and isn't recognizable from a thumbnail.

For an editor, this checkbox is visible immediately above the male/female/adult/immature checkboxes. It is currently "checked" by default on all uploads. This is what I was referring to when I said "untouched". Leave 8-12 untouched with respect to their representative status.

Another option, which is very handy for higher levels in the tree, is to specify a list of representative images during the editing of an Info page.

I did this to the spider guide page once last summer. Seemed to cut down on the number of Argiope aurantia and squashed wolf spiders in ID Request last fall.

This needs to be done for at least every Info page linked from the Clickable Guide. Seems like it would be very helpful. As for the rest of the guide pages, step 5 could be a major help in the right direction.

The placement I mentioned for "Upload new image" is just to imply the proper context for what a user might be uploading: data only.

The problem I see with the Images tab, is that it really just takes you down a black hole sometimes if you are trying to ID something. You, me, most anyone else who has been here awhile, know what we're after if we click Images. But act like a brand new user. Never been here before. Be a school kid for a moment...

I saw a Monarch but haven't figured that out yet.

So I click on the butterfly image from the Clickable Guide. (so go shift-click the thing so you can follow along)

"Awesome butterflies; I wanna see more. Taxonomy? no. Browse? No, I'm already browsing. Info? No, there already. Images? Yes, I wanna see more images so I can find my butterfly! <click> 24 random, unsorted, unidentified images. Keep going... page 12, still don't see my bug, and most of these images are hard to see from the thumbnail. I wonder how many more Holy Smoke! 323 pages!?"

But if we move the Images function and replaced it with browse, our noob might find brushfoots on page 2...

"Hey those brushfoots look pretty similar to my butterfly. <click> Hey, I have a Monarch! I wonder what's on the Info page for Monarch? Sweet! And there's an Images link on the Info page so I can see more pictures <click> Wow, those other pictures are awful, but at least I ID'd my bug all by myself!"

Yes, of course we can have a guide and a database. We just need to keep the data images out of the way, soon, or we'll never get rid of the smell.

… Jay Barnes, 1 May, 2008 - 2:29am

hypothetical question: How do

hypothetical question: How do you start weeding out photos? Based on what criteria?

Like Eric said, next thing you know this place is run by a bunch of elitists who think only their photos should be representatives and the average Joe or Jane's photos aren't up to their "standards".

Not every insect is going to be "beautiful"-ly placed on a "beautiful" flower under the "beautiful" sun. A lot of insects are in the dirt, mud, leaf litter, etc. Not only that, like Eric also mentioned, not everyone nor every photo is perfect. There is no such thing anyway.

And again, as Eric said, there are many behavioral shots that are equally as important, if not more, than the typical butterfly on a flower photo.

No amount of images are enough. Not only that, but this also helps , as previously said, when it comes to count.

The spirit of bug guide is such that ANYONE, and i mean ANYONE, can upload an image. The layout of the site works and has been working for years. After all, if it ain't broke......

Great post Kevin! it sure has created a lot of BUZZ ;-)

… bugguy91, 30 April, 2008 - 2:46pm

Hi, Paul- I understand you

Hi, Paul-

I understand your concerns; your priorities for selection, for example, would be very different from mine. I'm not interested in beautiful bugs on beautiful flowers; I'm interested in species identification. Your approach (all and more) is what I call the "Flickr" approach (they have dozens and dozens of endless collections of bugs). It is a fine approach and it is certainly fun to show off our latest great images -- I like that, too, but it is not what I would be looking for in a BugGuide.

… Kevin Pfeiffer, 30 April, 2008 - 5:18pm

Oh no, I think you misunderst

Oh no, I think you misunderstood what I said.

I'm saying we need to make sure we DON'T select only the most "beautiful" pictures as representatives.

I don't want this place to turn into a Flikr clone either.

… bugguy91, 1 May, 2008 - 8:21am

Sorry

Sorry, I see, now -- I was reading with an 8-month-old on my lap.

-K

… Kevin Pfeiffer, 1 May, 2008 - 9:44am

An old problem

We have been struggling with this matter almost from the beginning. See, for instance, this thread from February 2005 when Bugguide was barely a year old. There are a few others threads here and there.

At that time Troy, the creator of this site said: "By randomly choosing representative images, I think the guide part works pretty well now. The only trick is to keep the image collection clean with respect to what's representative. By default, they are all representative. The burden is on all the editors to mark unrepresentative images as such. I am hoping to make that process easier than having to edit the image."

In the meantime the site has grown tenfold and the editors cannot possibly deactivate the representative bit of all the repetitive images. Somebody did a superb job using a different approach on the Coleptera Info page. If we could do something similar for every taxon or at least for every higher taxon the guide would work a lot better as a guide. But, who has the time?

… Beatriz Moisset, 30 April, 2008 - 10:30am

> Somebody did a superb job u

> Somebody did a superb job using a different approach on the Coleptera Info page.

Looks useful. It also does seem like there is a need for an automated tracking of the edit history (I see too many "someones" in this thread), similar to what Wikipedia uses -- also useful when a revision or comparison are needed. I think someone already suggested this feature.

… Kevin Pfeiffer, 30 April, 2008 - 11:13am

Improving BugGuide...

I made a some suggestions, along with a stupid, embarrassing rant, in another thread that got a few positive responses; however, they involve a few changes to BugGuide's site layout and would require some additional effort from our overworked site admin to accomplish. I still stand behind my suggestions though, and feel they would help solve a lot of problems, so I'll copy them here (minus the rant):

____________________

1.) For new uploads, remove the default checked="checked" descriptor from the 'Representative' checkbox. All new uploads are now non-representative.
2.) Remove the 'Images' tab from the Guide. Rename the 'Browse' tab to 'Browse Images' (or some other descriptive term), and place it to the right of 'Info'. BugGuide just became easier to use.
3.) Place the 'Upload new image' function as a link on the 'Data' page where it now belongs.
4.) Place the 'Images' function as a link on the 'Data' page where it now belongs. Name and describe the 'Images' function in such a way that the few users who actually make it that far will understand "here lies poor, possibly very bad photos and even possibly incorrect identifications."
5.) Run SELECT/UPDATE commands against the database to keep 8-12 random representative images from each taxon untouched, and set the rest to non-representative. Have fun with that one!

All I ask is that John allows myself and other editors the opportunity to supply a list of taxons to be excluded from the thrashing of Step 5.

I can't think of anything else that would be needed other than to add instructional text here and there so contributors can become familiar with the new workflow. Though it would certainly be helpful at this point to change the default Search process to exclude non-rep images, and to place 'Info' pages at the top of the search results, to make it more friendly.

This would likely be a maximum 8-hour change management window, including backout and recovery time in the event of a failure, if this work is to be done directly to the live server and database (bad idea). Maximum 1-hour window if the HTML and database work is completed ahead of time in a development environment, as it should be. No additional hardware. No additional maintenance. No major recoding. No splitting/duplication of code. No database development.
____________________

Looking at it now, seems like the SQL command for step 5 could force the retention of images that are specified in the Representative Images: field of any Info page. Not sure what the database schema looks like though.

… Jay Barnes, 28 April, 2008 - 7:16pm

Adding to this and other comm

Adding to this and other comments, what I found difficult as a user trying to ID was that for a given genus (of spiders) there might be several pages of "Genus sp." images to page through -- with many "duplicates" (multiple representations of the same species or showing the same characteristics). It would seem preferable to display a few (sufficient and useful) representative images of the genus and then the same for the species, but not 6 pages in.

(Caveat emptor: My comments carry the advantage and disadvantages of being a BugGuide Newbie.)

-K

… Kevin Pfeiffer, 28 April, 2008 - 7:27pm

I agree

that the images can be cumbersome to wade through. The browse function is extremely helpful(I've recently discovered..after 3 years) except it's a little tricky to click "into" a genus to look at the species then back out of that genus and "into" another genus to look at those species. I think being able to start at one point and move forward through pages to the end point as under the images tab is the easiest way to search for something, and the smaller selection of images as in the browse tab is obviously better than clicking through six pages of one species to get to the next. Jay has suggested a good alternative, although I'm not sure the work that it entails.

I'm not sure how many people thought this would be an improvement to the guide, and I don't know if we ever got the opinion of John or Mike or anyone else that can help us with the mechanics of this.

… Lynette Elliott, 28 April, 2008 - 7:40pm

There wasn't much discussion

There wasn't much discussion afterward. It was such a long, convoluted thread that I imagine many people lost interest in following it. J.D. Roberts, Joyce Gross and Robin McLeod followed up with positive comments. Unfortunately no complaints were made about it. Complaints would hopefully lead to further improvement.

I'm certain that steps 1-4 are a piece of cake, even though I intentionally left out plenty of minor details. Step 5 might be a tough one to figure out, but even if it's done effectively there would still be a lot of follow-up work required by us editors to make sure that GOOD images appear for each species, so maybe it could just be left out altogether. I've manually specified representative images for only a dozen or spider info pages, which is only a drop in the bucket.

I've not seen anything from John or Mike on this either, and I haven't mentioned it to them directly since I knew they were both very busy. :-(

Feel free to rip it apart and suggest improvements. It seems the main goal here is to present our best quality images for helpful identification, while retaining other images "out of the way" to support data mining, in a way that doesn't require constant maintenance.

… Jay Barnes, 28 April, 2008 - 8:33pm

Coding

Perhaps, to save the editors a lot of work going through and choosing what they feel are the "representative" images of a species, some kind of coding could be instituted into the pages that reflect "hit counts." Naturally, the better pictures would be "hit" more, and it could be these "8-12" images that are programmed to automatically display as the representative images for that particular species.

For example, program the software to display the 10 pictures of Monarchs that are veiwed the most. This would be constantly changing, but would have the added benefit to include photos submitted after an editor had worked up that species already. Perhaps this is a thing that could be added into the software as an afterthought and not require too much editing anywhere else.

… Kenneth Dwain Harrelson, 29 April, 2008 - 6:32pm

Too Complicated

I may click on an image because I can't see what's goin' on so well.

… David Moll, 30 April, 2008 - 10:25am

Previous thread, some added thoughts.

There is a previous thread on this, but I don't recall its original title or date. Perhaps another responder can direct you. Overall, we are trying to balance the "data points" with good, clear images. With content constantly being uploaded, however, we don't have enough editors to handle content already in the guide. It is all I can do to help a little with moving "ID Request" images to proper guide pages. We're all volunteer, so you need to cut us some slack, please. We also don't want to be elitist, and frass most of the images of those few submitters who aren't up to our "standards." Some photographers have improved immensely since they first submitted, and they kept submitting because their initial images weren't immediately frassed. You see where I'm going? Since disk space is apparently not a problem, no need to be in a hurry to frass on that account, either. Lastly, we have some outstanding sequences of insect behavior, and not every image is perfect. It is, in my opinion, more important to document such things than to only accept high quality images.

… Eric R. Eaton, 28 April, 2008 - 3:26pm

Eric Raises An Excellent Point

Eric raises what I feel to be an excellent point. There are only so many editors and they donate their time freely, for no gain, just to help make BugGuide better. I thank them for the untiring work they do. Most of it. It seems to me that maybe some of their efforts could be a little more focussed so that they're not wasting time doing tasks that aren't really needed to be done. For instance - what was wrong with this photo that some editor had to spend their important time cropping down so that it was square instead of how it looks here?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything wrong with how this picture looks or any of the other 35 images (so far) of mine that were cropped in the same manner. Especially since, as Eric commented, disk space apparently isn't the issue. Couldn't some editor's time be spent better elsewhere?

… Kenneth Dwain Harrelson, 29 April, 2008 - 4:14pm

Maximizing the view

In the other similar forum I frequent (the excellent "Spiders of Central Europe" -- a German-language site) the emphasis is on showing specimens with as little wasted image space as possible. Of course, no one is measuring and I haven't seen your crop, so can't comment, but in general, the more of the specimen and the less of everything else, the better (especially for browsing). Perhaps the editor was trying for consistency?

-K

… Kevin Pfeiffer, 29 April, 2008 - 6:35pm

Maximizing The View

That would probably be this particular editor's justification, if they ever came forward. But, do you think this would be the first one they should go to when they're trying trying to make the images more consistent? I ask that you go here and look at this first page of images for Viceroys, which is where mine is currently located, and see the images. There are several where the Butterfly is smaller in the picture than this one of mine. Would it also interest you to know that not a single other picture on that page has been "cropped for consistency" in the last month? You can tell this by the date and time at the bottom of the remarks of a photo. The most recent date, other than mine was sometime in March.

The picture above is my crop, the one I used when it was first uploaded. I replaced it today when I found out it had been changed with no explanation. It seems to me that it's a whole lot easier to comment on a photo that it needs fixing than to go to the time-consumming effort of doing the actual editing of the picture itself. Editors have asked me to crop some of my pictures before and I had no problem doing it, the pictures usually needed it and I just hadn't noticed. Several of the almost 40 that have been cropped in the last few days, however, were used in various articles I had written on BugGuide. Some were cropped in such a way as to throw off the captions I had positioned underneath them, or so as to remove the portion of the picture I was talking about in the article. I don't guess they realized what they were doing. I wish they'd just stop and come to me first if my pictures aren't good enough for the Guide.

Plus to answer your question that started this topic, you need to realize that not only was this site designed to help identify insects, the creators also had in mind to track their movements. So, when you ask "how many is too many?" which purpose are you asking about? The purpose of identifying them or those that may have been uploaded for the data they supply? Which is a purpose, too. Perhaps there may be too many to sift through for identification, but a lot of users feel there aren't enough for the data they could supply. That seems to be the big issue right now and perhaps BugGuide 2.0, which you've probably been hearing about, will resolve this issue.

… Kenneth Dwain Harrelson, 29 April, 2008 - 7:12pm

> Plus to answer your questio

> Plus to answer your question that started this topic, you need to
> realize that not only was this site designed to help identify insects,
> the creators also had in mind to track their movements. So, when you
> ask "how many is too many?" which purpose are you asking about? The
> purpose of identifying them or those that may have been uploaded for
> the data they supply?

Good point! I guess that that is the question hidden within my original question: do the two purposes conflict? I think that they do -- I like the taxonomic break-down (my only experience is with the spiders here), but it seems to me that sooner or later (sooner) you'll
end up with a Flickr-like "Sammelsurium" (German word that suggests a catch-all, pack-rat collection or dusty attic museum).

I agree that data on distribution, time-of-year collected, etc. can be useful, but is the BG really optimized to make this data available? (Just asking.)

Anyhow, just trying to provide some fresh feedback. Use if useful, otherwise disregard. (And I don't know why your images were cropped -- best to ask the person who did it.)

-K

… Kevin Pfeiffer, 29 April, 2008 - 11:19pm

Original Question

I kind of thought that's what you were asking and it's a good point. It seems like that's the precise quandary that everybody's stumped on right now. BugGuide is a very useful tool for identification, to that I can attest whole-heartedly. It's the reason why I found the site in the first place. And, as far as I'm concerned, it's one of the best general insect-identifying websites I've ever seen. But, when it was set up, perhaps the creators failed to take in everything it could become and by it's very definition, will be hard to mature in a practical, workable manner. As it goes along, it's becoming clear that the two purposes don't seem to work well together. If you have a lot of pictures that are useful for tracking insects, it becomes weighted down for those merely seeking an identification. I do know that there have been times when a wider selection of shots, such as can be found here, have been very helpful for me in trying to ID my own bugs. I don't know how many is too many, though. Maybe we're about to reach that point.

So, I don't know what's going to happen, I can only wait and see when BugGuide 2.0 is finally unveiled. I, for one, am quite anxious to see what it will be like. And, thanks for the feedback on my cropping issue, I appreciate it. It's nice to know somebody's listening! But, as for asking the person who did it, only editors can do a thing like that and they usually don't sign names to their handiwork. I don't have a clue who did it in this case. Unless someone wants to take the credit?

… Kenneth Dwain Harrelson, 29 April, 2008 - 11:39pm

Is There Any Way

to keep data points even if the picture is frassed? I think this would be good. Example: If a picture of mine was frassed and it was the only one for Michigan it would still show Michigan as where this bug has been seen. Same with dates seen, etc.

… Sharon Warner, 29 April, 2008 - 2:20pm

You make a great point, and t

You make a great point, and there should be a way to keep record of this even if the photo is not a very good specimen.

… bugguy91, 30 April, 2008 - 1:21pm

Nope

Not possible. And if it were, and the image was deleted, it would not be possible to verify identification or the data provided by the image. I've had to track down a few out-of-range specimens that turned out to be pets.

… Jay Barnes, 29 April, 2008 - 3:13pm

Previous Thread

There is more than one thread about frassing, but here is one that talks about data points and leads to an article.

… Lynette Elliott, 28 April, 2008 - 5:03pm