Development of a common insect catalog website

.So that's it ?first question :photos of butterflies in nature or any other .I just have all the photos from the collection, and from nature it is problematic
.as literature ,we decided to use Tuzov and Korshunov ,as well as any other information that we find ,but so far this has become the main
one!If that's the case, I was more than happy to help you with the pictures

. so this is it ?first question :photos of butterflies in nature or any other .I just have all the photos from the collection, and from nature it is problematic

Photos, of course, any. This is not a book where the volume is strictly limited - here, on the contrary, you can choose one of several photos to illustrate the article, and in the article you can hang a link to the selection from the photo gallery section-all photos of this type.

.as literature ,we decided to use Tuzov and Korshunov ,as well as any other information that we find ,but so far this has become the main
one!If that's the case ,I'll be more happy to help you with the pictures than I can.

That Tuzova is a good thing, because I, for example, do not have it at all, only Korshunov 2002.
About the photo - thank you for your kind words, you will definitely need them.

Now you can take a look at http://lepidoptera.ru how this whole case looks at the moment, respectively, at http://lepidoptera.ru/family/lycaenidae/ there is a section of the database for pigeon beds.
If you have any thoughts on how to organize your articles more correctly (for an example, take a look http://lepidoptera.ru/species/papilio-machaon/ text about swallowtail), will also be very interesting to hear. All other comments are also welcome.

Thank you.

  
Now you can take a look at http://lepidoptera.ru how this whole case looks at the moment, respectively, at http://lepidoptera.ru/family/lycaenidae/ there is a section of the database for pigeon beds.

I apologize for being a little harsh, but it seems to me that the content of this site is too primitive. If you want to create a website, then you need each section to be supervised by a corresponding SPECIALIST who understands his group not just well, but PERFECTLY! And if you do it in the same way as the site you named, then it will not be of any use - there are a dime a dozen such amateur sites on Runet. And many of them have factual errors, if you dig around. Yes, and make the site not according to books (Tuzov, Korshunov, etc.), but in its own way, that is, so that it is an author's work. That is, you need 1-2 specialists to do each section, and all the others would help them with photos or information. Otherwise, there will be a leapfrog and everything will stall, as in the case of the golubyanok site.
Therefore, if you create a website based on butterflies , then it should be of a PROFESSIONAL level. And on the amateur and do not be so sprayed, this idea has exhausted itself.

I voted for the third point. I will express my vision. In general, photos are the most valuable part of such sites. Essays, especially since they are compiled from well-known sources, are viewed fluently or not read at all. By and large, essays are not needed, who can use them?! Someone who doesn't have the same Korshunov or Tuzov? That is, a very novice amateur. Does it need this much information? If necessary, you can always get it. In addition, it is obvious that the preparation of specific essays, if this is a creative compilation, will take a lot of time. That is, there is a lot of work, but the benefits are questionable.
So, here I agree with Ekos.

Photos are another matter. There are never too many photos. A large database of photos with an accurate indication of localities - this would be really useful for illustrating and studying(!) intraspecific variability. In the same Tuzov, the authors have reduced so many subspecies to synonyms, obviously without even having the material! And here, on the forum, disputes often flare up due to the fact that not everyone is familiar with the variability of the species. Remember, more than once it was on golubyanki. As for rare species, here, in general, every photo is valuable.
Total, my opinion: photos-yes, specific essays-no.

Y-yes, I wrote about the fact that the text content on the site currently leaves much to be desired in my first post. Well, let's write again: yes, the texts are bad! I agree, the specialist will write much better.
That's why I'm here to find specialists who know more and can write better.
So, if there are experts on any group of butterflies here who are ready to publish their texts - welcome, let us know, we will change the bad descriptions to good ones.
But while there are no good descriptions, it seems to me that the ones that are available now are better than none. Yes, these texts may seem completely useless to experienced butterfly lovers, but why not take into account beginners? Not everyone has access to the original text sources (I don't agree that you can always find them), especially the assemblies from them, and for beginners such texts are much better than their absence. And then, you see, some of the dummies will become specialists...
As for the photos - I also agree, there are not many, although of course you should not produce obvious duplicates.

Resume: the point of this topic is just to work together to make a more competent common site, and not to produce descriptions like mine. I can produce such descriptions myself :-- ) Accordingly, there are no major contradictions with the opinions of Andylog, RippeR and Ekos.

Thank you to everyone who has already responded.

If we talk about beginners, which I consider myself, then they would probably be interested in the gallery of caterpillars of butterflies living in central Russia. Well, or in Russia as a whole. Because butterflies are still somehow possible to determine (there are enough books), but on the caterpillars I strained...

If we talk about beginners, which I consider myself, then they would probably be interested in the gallery of caterpillars of butterflies living in central Russia. Well, or in Russia as a whole. Because butterflies are still somehow possible to determine (there are enough books), but on the caterpillars I strained...

Of course, you can't ignore the caterpillars either. Actually, the site is not limited to a narrow topic, but is limited only to the squad, because there would be the right content...

what I didn't like about the site - subfamily so-and - so-a link, click on the link, and a list of subfamily types.. In my opinion, this is very inconvenient and it is necessary that all the types of the family should be in one list - this is much more convenient and visual, there is no confusion and other things..

I will be very happy to help with the photo.

About the descriptions. Okoyom gives good descriptions on his website - everything is based on personal experience-observing how they fly, whether they are shy, whether they like to fly above the ground or high, at what time, etc. There is also a map of the areas. Even a not very accurate area map gives a good idea of the species and its distribution. I even suggest doing this - creating identical maps for each type, registering them, and giving certain users the right to put dots on the map. Thus, not everyone, but only participants who will not carelessly approach the case, will leave very valuable information. You can even make it so that when you hover over each point, information is displayed - a description of the exact location.
In this way, let's say it will be very convenient for me to insert information by type and add it quickly and a lot - for Moldova and other places I have visited.

As for the descriptions of butterflies, you can stick any descriptions, but only for the first time, then everyone who has experience in communicating with these species will change the information if it is not accurate or complete. Thus, in any case, there will be information, this time, and it will also be constantly updated and adjusted. Modified articles can be marked at the bottom or top of the page that the article is complete.
If you really try hard and get down to business well together, but stick to the project - you will get a good database! Moreover, the basis-the site, is already there, there is only the smallest thing left - to take pictures and send Asar, and then deal with descriptions, etc.

!If that's the case ,I'll be more happy to help you with the pictures than I can.

RippeR, and the pictures are only of pigeons, or does it mean more coverage?

A. They wrote almost simultaneously...

what I didn't like about the site - subfamily so-and - so-a link, click on the link, and a list of subfamily types.. In my opinion, this is very inconvenient and it is necessary that all the types of the family should be in one list - this is much more convenient and visual, there is no confusion and other things..

I don't quite understand, to be honest. It is suggested that all types, for example, nymphlids, be displayed on one page? So there are, to put it mildly, a lot of them there... Moreover, in the future, at least, there should be more than one Europe...
Another thing is that as an alternative to such a link click and alphabetical search, as well as just a stupid search (now being completed), a free selection of species is planned, where using all sorts of switches, etc., you can make a free query - species or not species, nymphalids or everything in a row, with descriptions or not, with illustrations or not, 50 entries per page or 350, etc. I think this option will be really effective.

About the descriptions. Okoyom gives good descriptions on his website - everything is based on personal experience-observing how they fly, whether they are shy, whether they like to fly above the ground or high, at what time, etc. There is also a map of the areas. Even a not very accurate area map gives a good idea of the species and its distribution. I even suggest doing this - creating identical maps for each type, registering them, and giving certain users the right to put dots on the map. Thus, not everyone, but only participants who will not carelessly approach the case, will leave very valuable information. You can even make it so that when you hover over each point, information is displayed - a description of the exact location.
In this way, let's say it will be very convenient for me to insert information by type and add it quickly and a lot - for Moldova and other places I have visited.

Here I agree, technically it is also possible to implement, in principle. The only thing is that the people are not too lazy to get at least to some extent.

As for the descriptions of butterflies, you can stick any descriptions, but only for the first time, then everyone who has experience in communicating with these species will change the information if it is not accurate or complete. Thus, in any case, there will be information, this time, and it will also be constantly updated and adjusted. Modified articles can be marked at the bottom or top of the page that the article is complete.

It's supposed to. At the bottom, unsubscribe who added what to the description, but there are almost no such additions at the moment.

If you really try hard and get down to business well together, but stick to the project - you will get a good database! Moreover, the basis-the site, is already there, there is only the smallest thing left - to take pictures and send Asar, and then deal with descriptions, etc.

That's it. If there are large volumes, I will arrange for images to be automatically uploaded to the site by registered users, so that I don't have to waste my time with emails and so on.

So, I will reflect on the implementation of automatic placement of points on the map by registered users, and now the question for everyone is the following:
Who thinks that at this stage it is enough just to send changes to descriptions/new descriptions, or should we already make a mechanism for updating information online for registered users so that changes can be made directly in the browser? And should such changes be discussed in advance, or should all registered users be allowed to edit them directly?

.1. about the pictures - I'll help you in any way I can, of course golubyanki is super cool ,but this is just the beginning .naturally there will be other families as well

.2. I suggest displaying everything on one page .of course, in many families there are a lot of species ,but when there are also a lot of subfamilies with a lot of species, there is generally confusion with species .if you really don't want to do everything in one list, then I suggest-drop-down lists - to go to the types of subfamily, do not go to a separate page ,but click on the name of the subfamily, from which the lists of species will appear on the same page

.3. about maps and other things - if there is a good site, and even if there is no analog, then even specialists will reach out and not be lazy

.4. regarding the main issue - anyone can register ,but all the same changes should occur directly in the browser - the user should see what and how he does, and not write, do not worry about what, it's more convenient ,BUT the right to add and change should be given by the main admin or curator of the topic - such a person can allow exactly those people who will do everything well and correctly

I remembered another idea - if there are grandmothers from all over the world, then in the lists of our butterflies you can select green, not red..

.1. about the pictures - I'll help you in any way I can ,of course golubyanki is super cool ,but this is just the beginning .naturally there will be other families as well

Can you send us a couple of images for an example? main#lepidoptera.ru

.2. I suggest displaying everything on one page .of course, in many families there are a lot of species ,but when there are also a lot of subfamilies with a lot of species, there is generally confusion with species .if you really don't want to do everything in one list, then I suggest-drop-down lists - to go to the types of subfamily, do not go to a separate page ,but click on the name of the subfamily, from which the lists of species will appear on the same page

To avoid confusion with subtaxons, there will be an alternative selection with search. Drop-down lists-in general, the idea is not bad, but, in addition to the disadvantages of custom ones, there is one global / abstract one-Yandex does not go by drop-down lists...

.3. about maps and other things - if there is a good site, and even if there is no analog, then even specialists will reach out and not be lazy

And the site will be good if the specialists are not too lazy. That's the point :--)

.4. regarding the main issue - anyone can register ,but all the same changes should occur directly in the browser - the user should see what and how he does, and not write, do not worry about what, it's more convenient ,BUT the right to add and change should be given by the main admin or curator of the topic - such a person can allow exactly those people who will do everything well and correctly

Then, I think it is correct to post a preliminary version of the author directly on the description page for discussion. And after that, translate the text into the actual descriptive and article part of the same page.

ZY As for" our "butterflies-in general, you can somehow distinguish them, but, on the other hand, for a resident of the European part of the Russian Federation, the Far Eastern species will probably be less" our " than the butterflies of some Eastern Europe...

my pictures are in the images-pigeons, fatheads.
If that's not enough , I'll send you a couple of pictures later

Yandex - full aztecs.. It is necessary to Google, because of what you can find everything and not suffer with the site device..
alternatively, make links by subfamily, and leave the lists of available species at the bottom without links.. However, this can be confusing and cumbersome..
I'm still in favor of a complete list - for 1 family, there will hardly be too many species... ?

Specialists will not be too lazy to make a contribution if there is a good promising base that attracts attention.

As for our butterflies, you can select them by region in different colors. at the very least, put colored pointers like balls or squares before the name of the species, indicating that this species is in such and such a region or even region..

In general, for our people, our butterflies are even in Kamchatka, even in the Urals.. The main thing is that they are in the CIS... so I think it's better not to bother with many colors.

ZY As for" our "butterflies-in general, you can somehow distinguish them, but, on the other hand, for a resident of the European part of the Russian Federation, the Far Eastern species will probably be less" our " than the butterflies of some Eastern Europe...

And the Far East is not Russia?! And, it turns out, the site will be made for residents of the European part of Russia, if you say so?! Then the Far Easterners have a rest. Although, in principle, you can make a separate site specifically for DV butterflies by local entomologists, which will be more reliable. The only thing is, it is unlikely that anyone will do this now due to lack of time.

And the Far East is not Russia?! And, it turns out, the site will be made for residents of the European part of Russia, if you say so?! Then the Far Easterners have a rest. Although, in principle, you can make a separate site specifically for DV butterflies by local entomologists, which will be more reliable. The only thing is, it is unlikely that anyone will do this now due to lack of time.

Ekos, calm down, you misunderstood me... I meant that I don't see much point in singling out butterflies in Russia, because Russia is big, and a person who lives in the European part is closer to some butterflies (which are in Europe), and a person from the Far East is closer to others. Therefore, I consider such a division of species into Russian / non-Russian very artificial and, although for greater interest, it is possible to note that, they say, the species is Russian (for the same sample), but to highlight the species in color in the general list only on the basis that it is located within the administrative borders of a state-it seems to me, this is too much. The borders seem to be quite open now...
Therefore, in no case will the site be only for residents of the European part. And it won't be just for residents of Russia. It's just that its main language at the moment is Russian - that's all the restriction.
And if there are specialists in Far Eastern species who can provide information - it will be just great. And if there are no such ones, then I will post them myself, including Far Eastern species, even if they are not very high quality... Yes, and now there is already some of them.

after all, the mentality of the Russians is different.. For me, for example, that with the Far East, that with Ukraine the views are equally "ours". Here for meyan manto from Ukraine is interesting, but from Europe so-so..
Here's the thing - it will be much easier to find the right butterflies-when our species are interesting, when you need to identify the right species not from hundreds of similar species, of which 80 are not found in our country.. And most of our people are exactly the same

I totally agree with Ripper. Indeed, there is nothing artificial in this, for me that butterflies from the Far East and the Volga region are equally "ours". And now everything is being adjusted to the administrative boundaries, this is a normal practice and there is no need to be afraid of it. And even more so, it is absolutely normal to drive the site into the borders of the STATE, i.e. Russia in this case. Or to the borders of the former USSR, as is now fashionable. You can, of course, drive it into natural boundaries, for example, make the site "Butterflies of the Palearctic", but I think it's not worth it, because for many species there will be no photos or information, and the site will be very raw and, as a result, no sense will come out of it. Therefore, let's evaluate our capabilities realistically, without illusions.

at least if you do "other "types, not "our", then do this opotsepenno after I will be done our..

If I understood correctly, it was still not about what species to limit themselves to in general (because there will be no restrictions, you never know, there may be a specialist on Madagascar butterflies...), but about whether it is worth highlighting Russian ones among others. OK, the offer is accepted, there will be an extra jackdaw -- ru view.
Now the following is actually closer to the point: if I am currently creating a system that allows a regular registered user to make changes to existing descriptions or create new descriptions, can anyone find the time to try it out?

you can, just a little later

to Asar:
In general, as I understood from your conversation and ideas, this will still be an amateur site. Professional ones don't do that. It will turn out something like the free encyclopedia Wikipedia. And with this approach, you are unlikely to attract specialists for writing.

This post was edited by Ekos - 05/22/2008 01: 56

to Asar:
In general, as I understood from your conversation and ideas, this will still be an amateur site. Professional ones don't do that. It will turn out something like the free encyclopedia Wikipedia. And with this approach, you are unlikely to attract specialists for writing.

There are incomparably more amateur entomologists than professionals. The site will probably focus on them. But who said that information, including the distribution of species, will not be interesting to specialists. I have no doubt that some specialists will help in creating the site, and all amateurs should at least help with photos and their observations. The main thing, in my opinion, is that all existing species should be described and "photographed"as much as possible. In general, all intentions, as it seems to me, are correct. And if in the future we also make a version of the site in English, then Europe will probably also be connected.

to Asar:
In general, as I understood from your conversation and ideas, this will still be an amateur site. Professional ones don't do that.

There is some hope that it will be universal. It's a website, not a book. Why not be universal...
Ekos, apart from jokes, please tell me how professional ones should be made (i.e. what is the global difference)?

to Asar:
It will turn out something like the free encyclopedia Wikipedia.

No. Wikipedia — a set of nouname information. With all the advantages and disadvantages. And on the site under discussion, the information is just with the authors and sources, pre-moderated in addition.

to Asar:
And with this approach, you are unlikely to attract specialists for writing.

How should the approach change to make the situation different?

The main thing, in my opinion, is that all existing species should be described and "photographed"as much as possible. In general, all intentions, as it seems to me, are correct. And if in the future we also make a version of the site in English, then Europe will probably be connected as well.

Thanks for the support. Europe is already connected. At least with photos:--)

I would suggest that the author of the project take a different path. Make a single database tied to the user. Let each user have their own personal account in which they collect their own collection of photos. Then the collections of all users will be combined into one large shared site collection. Such a system will be more easily replenished, because many people will be able to simultaneously collect only their own collection. In addition, such a system is very useful from the point of view of statistics of butterfly summer time, geography, etc. The approach in which users have a certain personal account is more successful from a psychological point of view. Each user works in their own "world", builds their own small or small collection. At the same time, it will be enough for specialists to control the process of combining small collections into one large one. All major projects are built on this principle of combining small into large projects.
I would like the author of the project to pay attention to the design and so on. If my opinion is interesting, I am ready to personally communicate with the author of the project.

PS in the form in which the project is conceived today, it will arise for three reasons:
1. unprofessionalism of the main part of users
2. as a consequence of the first reason, there is a complete blockage of specialists who will only clean up after the first ones.
3. Since specialists always or almost always do not have time, they will not be able to constantly clean up information, the project will become anarchic and useless.

bahurin, the idea is generally clear. Only there is a doubt that many people will need such an office - after all, such sites are a dime a dozen, although they are not butterfly-shaped, but still. In addition, there is an opinion that this will lead to an uncontrolled download of a bunch of junk, and most importantly - not junk, but someone else's" whistled " pictures from somewhere...

And one more thing. As far as I understand, such an account does not save you from all three points you mentioned...

Regarding the design: actually, it's not there right now. Regarding other things, such as convenience: opinions are quite interesting. So I don't mind talking to you personally, even by email main#lepidoptera.ru, even offline, if it is convenient to meet in Moscow, N. Novgorod and several other cities...

Resume: despite the doubts I expressed, the issue with such a cabinet is relevant, I ask everyone to express their thoughts. P.
S. Something like this cabinet will be available to all registered users who have the right to add information to the site.

Ekos, apart from jokes, please tell me how professional ones should be made (i.e. what is the global difference)?

It seems to me that the information base of the site should be made by specialists for each specific group of butterflies. Otherwise, an amateur can write such a thing! I mean, the information on such a site should be as reliable as possible. And many amateur sites, alas, do not correspond to this. And you should not copy information from books, otherwise such a site will make little sense.
And I don't mind it, I would help with the content myself, but I really want the site to stand out sharply from the rest for the better.

For a previous question.
You can create a theme curator (for specific groups of butterflies).
People will write information that is not immediately displayed on the site, but inserted only after the curator checks it.
That is, to make such a mechanism that this message comes to some curator's page, which he can edit, and then that he simply clicks the place button, and this would be inserted, or cancel and this would be deleted.. or postpone it, and it would wait in the wings

Ekos, RippeR, I understand that the issue is not enough high-quality / reliable information that can be found on the site. Of course, you need to make sure that the data is as accurate as possible. And it goes without saying that such data can be provided primarily by a specialist. So, the site is there, now I'm finishing the interface for adding information, after which it will be up to a specialist to find the time and desire to update the information.

Now the situation: there are not enough specialists for everything. For example, for 70% of the types that will be in the database, there are no descriptions. And specialists are busy with other types, or they just don't get their hands on it yet. Question: leave these species without any descriptions at all, or provide an opportunity for non-specialists like me, for example, to post their own description, based on books (even popular ones) or, in part, their own observations.
I believe that in this case, an amateur description is better than no one, and its main drawback - lower quality or lower reliability-is easily corrected by the fact that the mandatory condition for publishing such a description is to disclose the sources (and for each section of the description separately), as well as the name of the author of the description.
As a result: if a person reads the description and sees that I wrote it, for example, based on available popular books , they get information, including the necessary information, but not too detailed and sometimes not accurate enough, etc., and if there is a signature of a specialist, and they indicate more serious sources, then the relation to such a description will be appropriate.
Additionally, for those who are not very aware, you can put a note to the author ( title, something) - curator/specialist of this group, amateur, etc.

Those. the main thing is that the information" amateur "is noticeably separated from "qualified". And this is quite feasible, and it is already being implemented. And it goes without saying that the information is from more competent specialists (who also need to be calculated). :--) highly welcome.

Summary: now I'm finishing the function of updating descriptions by registered users, as soon as I finish it-welcome to testing.

P.S. As I have already said, there is an idea of posting a new description for discussion in the case of an" unverified " author or in the case when the old description changes a lot, i.e. there are contradictions.

I sent you a couple of photos of species that don't have any photos yet. Basically, I have a lot of views that are not yet available on your site. Do you need photos or not? And how best to send them. Which photos are better: from the collection (spread out) or in nature?

I sent you a couple of photos of species that don't have any photos yet. Basically, I have a lot of views that are not yet available on your site. Do you need photos or not? And how best to send them. Which photos are better: from the collection (spread out) or in nature?

Yes, I got your email, thank you. Photos, of course, are needed.
Regarding sending methods:
In the near future, I will add the ability to upload files directly to the site. It is also always possible to send it by mail.
In the course of tomorrow, I will write back to you in detail, as well as formulate and post on the site the rules for adding images and texts.

Thank You

Pre-conditions for publishing images on the site have been laid out: http://lepidoptera.ru/terms/
If anyone has any opinions/comments — you are welcome.

I don't think it's a good idea to lump all the nymphalids in the world
together. There should be sections by region.

Rather, even a free choice in terms of parameters: nymphalids, Europe, found in the Russian Federation, with photos — something like that.

This is how many species of butterflies there are! And if we discuss each specific essay...

Yes, here, Vladimir, you are probably right — the discussion should be done, but not mandatory, but simply — if anyone has comments/amendments-we make them.

IMHO, a good site already exists, lepidoptera.pl. The truth does not cover
the World, but only Europe. But if necessary, I do not think that the author will be against expanding it to the Far East. The site doesn't have a Russian version yet, but work on it has already begun.

Yeah. And Chris himself is a good person. I would like more sites with this and better content...

More than half a thousand scoops in Ukraine alone...

That's it.

I don't think that experts will take seriously
information from an amateur site.

It is clear who will fill it, so will the contents, and that for a specialist a colorful atlas with a prof is of little interest. points of view — probably yes.

Y-yes, the following question came up:
How can I confirm the validity of a snapshot? A person sends a photo, says that, they say, this is the kind of view on it. This person is unknown to me, I myself from the photo, of course, will not always be able to confirm-it/not it.
Options:
Just look at other photos of this type on the Web-if it looks like it, then fine.
Every time you ask someone or even put an open question on the forum / website.
Something else.
Obviously, if communism comes, and the sections have competent curators, you can give this question to them to eat, but if communism did not come, the question is slightly open...

First of all, it doesn't look like communism at all. Communism would be if moders were at the head, who did not ask anyone and put everything as they wanted and as they wanted, even if they did not like the real name

The names of species can be confirmed by posting a photo on the forum, i.e. here .if in doubt.. Or call high-quality moderators

In any case, you definitely should not put up a photo if there are doubts - such photos will scare off not only specialists, but also non-specialists

But in general, the information curve can always get to the site. Yes, even from a specialist (although with a much lower probability, of course). If only it was noticed and corrected.