HomeGuideID RequestRecentFrassForumsDonateHelp

Clickable Guide

Calendar

Upcoming Events

Registration is open for the 2024 BugGuide gathering in Idaho July 24-27

Moth submissions from National Moth Week 2023

Photos of insects and people from the 2022 BugGuide gathering in New Mexico, July 20-24

Photos of insects and people from the Spring 2021 gathering in Louisiana, April 28-May 2

Photos of insects and people from the 2019 gathering in Louisiana, July 25-27

Photos of insects and people from the 2018 gathering in Virginia, July 27-29

Previous events

From a contributors standpoint....

In reference to forum topic here and here.

I didn't want to interrupt the other discussions with what is probably frivolous ramblings.
However, just some thoughts....

First, shouldn't "Browse", "Representative Images", and "Overview Images" all be the same images? If, as suggested, these are supposed to be the best BugGuide has to offer, why wouldn't this apply to all of these categories?

Second, aren't "Browse", "Representative Images", and "Overview Images" basically trying to convey the same information but are just using different "words" as titles?

Third, it seems to me that all that is happening here is more "groups" of images are being created to serve the same, or very similar, functions. And isn't that in itself creating more clutter, confusion, and work?

If indeed, these are to help people navigate, self ID, and inform then it just seems to me that they should all be the same. Or eliminate all but one of these groups and just use that for all three purposes. The guide is continually growing by leaps and bounds and I don't think that adding more "areas" will help with decreasing confusion or help with navigation. It will only create more difficulties. To me, less is more and the simpler you can keep it the better it is for everyone, including editors.

I do admit that I like the "overview" a lot. It helps someone like me that doesn't have an ento degree to maybe at least narrow things down some. But, again, I don't see why something like that can't be incorporated into "browse" and eliminate additional text, images, and what amounts to essentially more "stuff".

I also like Will's idea of experts telling us which images of a series are good to keep for identification and/or behavior and to frass the rest. When I submit a series of images I have a general idea of what might be needed but because I'm no expert I sometimes will submit several angles to try to "cover all the bases" when in reality only certain ones would have been needed.

What exactly is the criteria for determining which images will be included in each "area" for "Browse", "Representative Images", and "Overview Images"? I believe one or two of these are random every time and the "overview" is static.
The following is an admittedly self centered and selfish statement. My understanding of the "overview" is to display the best images BugGuide has to offer. I notice that only one of my images have been included in the three overviews created so far. Is there an underlying reason for this or is it the opinion of the creator of the overviews that the images that are included are simply head-and-shoulders higher quality than any of the others? Of course, my personal opinion is that I have seen images included in the overviews in which myself and others have much better images. So, with that self centered and conceited statement made, what would a person need to do, as far as photography, quality, angles, details, to be considered for this? Or, am I just full of it and the selected images were chosen at random because they were sufficient for the need?
If there are requirements, other than the obvious, please indicate such so that we may try to set goals for ourselves to achieve a higher standard of images.

Contributed by Sam Houston on 31 December, 2008 - 10:24am

Browse and Representative Images

In the early days of Bugguide, when we had a few thousand images, "Browse" and "Representative Images" were very useful. We were supposed to remove the representative bit from the ones that were good enough to keep but not to be representative. They worked well then when we had a few thousand images of consistent quality but they have become less useful to downright obsolete now that we are approaching 200,000 images. It is impossible to remove the representative bit or to frass all the unnecessary ones. That is why we have started creating the overviews. But we'll have to continue living with "Browse" and "Representative Images" as long as there are no overviews for most pages. Don't let them bother you, they are easy to ignore.

Creating an overview is hard and delicate work. It will be a long time before all pages have them, maybe never.
The criteria I use for chosing an image are:
1. Solid ID.
2. Good quality
3. The kind of balance that Will mentions
4. Is the contributor likely to stay permanently or to remove his/her images? Sometimes I check their account page for words such as "My images remain here in the case of my demise." Sometimes I use my own images for this reason.

… Beatriz Moisset, 1 January, 2009 - 11:31am

Criteria

I forgot to add to the list of criteria another factor: fatigue. For instance, in the Hymenoptera overview I had over 500 Andrenidae to choose from, more than 3,000 Apidae and about 1,500 Halictidae, not to mention all the other families. If I tried to screen all the potentially worthwhile images I would have never finished the job, so it was enough for now to select the first one that met the above criteria.

… Beatriz Moisset, 1 January, 2009 - 5:12pm

....

I understand.

… Sam Houston, 1 January, 2009 - 8:30pm

....

Thanks Beatriz.

… Sam Houston, 1 January, 2009 - 1:29pm

Overviews

In a perfect world every image would be the cover photo for a magazine and the random view would pick one male one female and one larva. However all of the non-cover photos make "Browse" less useful. All of the variation in a species makes random selection of images less than ideal. If every image had representative turned OFF and every new submission had it turned off by default AND there was an easy way for an editor to turn it on (one click like tagging) then Browse would be a little better, but still not prefect. An image that was good enough at species level may not be good enough at genus or family. Forcing the guide to pick certain representative images or making overviews is a substitute for Browse, but it is all done by hand and has to be updated from time to time. Then you have people who post images that aren't magazine cover photos just to fill in the map or they like the image or whatever I don't know, but are offended if their images don't come up in Browse and don't want their representative bit turned off. A tug-of-war between ease of use and egos, so balance is always needed to keep most people happy most of the time.

I wouldn't say that overview is to show "the best" images, like it is a contest and you feel the judge from the host nation just cheated the away team. It is to replace Browse as a way to navigate easily through the guide, nothing more. No prizes. No little thumbs on user pages -"my images used in overviews", gag. As far as images picked for an overview, I can only speak about Mirids. I would go to a genus, look at ALL of the images (identified at the time), and pick a few of the ones that showed the bug well IN THE THUMBNAIL. Then I would follow through to the 560 size image and try to make a judgment if it was worth the click-through. Most weight was based on Thumb, but there had to be some value on the other side of the click. A brown bug on a brown background may be of great value from a natural setting perspective, but it shows the bug poorly in a thumbnail. Also, I believe some people use more of their own images in overviews because they don't have to worry about them being deleted. I think if you have an image which is WAY better than one used in an overview and the one there isn't serving the purpose then I would submit it to Guide Page Improvements, otherwise it just sounds like "look at me, what about me". No prizes were awarded, just a lot of effort to make the guide more useable for everyone, as you said they "are to help people navigate, self ID, and inform", that's all.

… John R. Maxwell, 31 December, 2008 - 4:53pm

Overview

Sam, I think you've really undervalued the effort that goes into making an overview, and by association, the person who created it. Making an overview isn't just picking a good quality image and slapping on the page as the representative. There are a lot of things to consider when choosing an image, and appropriate and good are not necessarily equivalent. Take the case of beetles:

What criterion should an image for an overview be chosen? Do you choose the most speciose genus, which in Buprestidae is Agrilus, but that isn't what people normally think of when you think Buprestidae. Or in Coccinellidae, one of the most speciose genera is Scymus, but these are so small they are seldom encountered, whereas the classic Coccinella species, while not as many, are much more representative of what people will likely find. I've posted several imaged photos of Ostoma sp in Trogossitidae, and they are very good quality, but one look through the family and you'll see Ostoma is highly irregular in terms of body size.

A proper overview has to balance the various groups in a family as to which one is the most likely form to be encountered, or is a good representation of the average body profile, this might not always be the best quality photo.

In terms of fixing images to use on the browse function as representative or not, I think that there is really only one circumstance that would dictate someone designating an image. This is if the holotype has been imaged, and is thus THE standard against which all other specimens are compared. I've done this with the holotype of Tibicen tremulus that I imaged. I don't know how many photos on bugguide represent the holotype, but I doubt there are very many.

As for not having your photos in the overview, that IS a highly conceited and narcissistic comment. Just because you take lots of photos and post them (more than ANY contributor, over 3000 photos) doesn't mean you get preferential treatment, nor does it mean that you must be consulted before undergoing a project like an overview. I've been a user for about 2 years longer than you, and I doubt I have any photos in the overview, and if not, it's because they weren't needed, not that they weren't wanted. I'm flattered if someone wants to use them, and if not, maybe tomorrow I'll take a better photo and see what happens. This isn't intended to promt you to delete your account, just to bring you back to Earth.

… Will Chatfield-Taylor, 31 December, 2008 - 10:19pm

No, no, no

Please don't misunderstand. I am not at all complaining, though it may sound that way. Nor am I going to delete my account Will, I'm done with all that and have no intentions of any such childish behavior again.
Also, I certainly didn't intend to diminish the work and effort that has gone in to making the overviews. I think the overviews are awesome. I was simply asking why there are apparently three functions to do what appears to be the same thing, or very similar things.

As far as my conceited statements, I admitted it sounded conceited. However, the real point behind it was not self indulgence but to find out if there was anything that I, or others, should be doing to improve. Honestly that was the reason, not conceit. I am humbled every day by photos that are much better than mine so please believe me when I say it was not intended as conceited.

Guys, I realize I've been a pain in the ass in the past and which is the main reason I don't participate in the forums very much anymore. I certainly never meant to be and I certainly didn't intend to cause anyone any grief.
BugGuide is an awesome website! And, the editors and experts that are here are awesome as well and lots of people put in untold hours to keep the site going and it is VERY much appreciated.

… Sam Houston, 1 January, 2009 - 8:50am

Sorry for over-reacting Sam,

Sorry for over-reacting Sam, that was a bit too harsh on my part. Glad you'll be staying with us.

… Will Chatfield-Taylor, 1 January, 2009 - 12:26pm

It's alright....

I've over-reacted way too many times on this site so I don't blame you for being skeptical of my intent. But believe me, I'm really working hard at getting along and trying not to take things the wrong way. I thoroughly enjoy taking pictures, posting them here, and then finding out what they are. I've always wanted to do something like this but until the digital age came along film was too expensive and a pain to use. But now I can and BugGuide is an integral part of my enjoyment. Most of my past issues were that I was trying so hard to get the right quality and wanting that quality so badly. I'm still not where I want to be with the quality but I'm much closer than I used to be. So, that is why I was questioning if there was something more I should be doing to improve and wondering if the overviews had anything to do with the quality, or lack thereof, of my pics.

… Sam Houston, 1 January, 2009 - 1:27pm

Aspiration

I'm not sure it is worth aspiring to have an image in an overview. Like the moth key they are mostly going to be made and stay static unless they REALLY need fixed. If it aint broke...there are just too many new ones that need to be created to fix one that works. Is it worth worrying about which thumb works best for the beetle overview if the current one is working just fine?

But if you want to be in an overview:
1) Find a section of the guide that I am interested in and doesn't already have an overview
2) Since you take a lot of pictures in the woods, take a white frisbee (or similar) into the field with you
3) Take a lot of pictures of the bugs on the frisbee
4) Get a bunch that are nice silhouettes
5) Get me to create that overview

… John R. Maxwell, 1 January, 2009 - 10:47am

How to use your aspiration

It is possible to create an overview without being an editor by doing it as an article. Then a link can be placed on the respective info page to the article. Eventually it could be moved to the info page.

Here are a few samples of articles that serve that purpose:
Insecta
Chironomidae
Spider eyes arrangement
Misumena, Misumenoides, Misumenops
Silhouette Key to Major Moth Families

So, Sam, you can pick a taxon that you like and go for it.
It is an excellent experience and the users will be very grateful to you.

… Beatriz Moisset, 2 January, 2009 - 8:36am

....

Ok, I'll think about it and see if I come up with anything. I do have a couple of things in mind.

But first, I think in all fairness, I should go back and update my Leafhoppers Of Oklahoma article. I always seem to move on to something else and have too many irons in the fire. But it just takes time....which always seems to be in short supply.

… Sam Houston, 2 January, 2009 - 8:44am

Images

Honestly, in my overviews the "best" image for the overview is a dorsal shot that nearly fills the frame on a solid background that is a contrast from the color of the insect. A lot of shots on drywall, siding, sheets, etc. For an "overview" of looking at all of the insects at the same time side-by-side I needed people to see the bug without clicking the thumb. They may not be good shots (some may even be bad) but they are good silhouettes. I wanted something like Lynette's moth key.

http://bugguide.net/node/view/94
http://bugguide.net/node/view/21675

… John R. Maxwell, 1 January, 2009 - 9:00am

I see.

That makes sense.

… Sam Houston, 1 January, 2009 - 11:11am

I'm going to be working on all of the Oecanthinae...

pages this winter....and would LOVE to have one of your photos included. Unfortunately, I think you've only posted one photo of a tree cricket thus far - but maybe you could check your files :) We really could use some more of Prairie, Davis', Four-spotted and Broad-winged. Plus, Fast-calling is found in Oklahoma -- but pretty much would have to be ID'd by sound.

… Wisconsin Oecanthinancy, 31 December, 2008 - 10:57pm

Disclaimer: Dedicated naturalists volunteer their time and resources here to provide this service. We strive to provide accurate information, but we are mostly just amateurs attempting to make sense of a diverse natural world. If you need expert professional advice, contact your local extension office.

Contributors own the copyright to and are solely responsible for contributed content.
Click the contributor's name for licensing and usage information.
Everything else copyright © 2003-2024 Iowa State University, unless otherwise noted.

Bugguide is hosted by:

Printer Friendly Version