Website on butterflies 2

Community and Forum → Other questions. Insects topics → Website on butterflies 2

Peter Khramov, 28.04.2009 19:27

In a private conversation with a discussion of the site from a neighboring topic (who hasn't seen it yet — Development of a common butterfly site) the idea was expressed:

For the adequacy and completeness of information on butterflies, it is necessary to reduce the site either by geography (do not cover the entire globe), or by functionality (do not mark the time of summer, etc.according to the list, because in different places it can be very different and it is unrealistic to cover everything, because it will take a thousand authors who are not present).

As a result, if you don't limit yourself to geography, the site should look like a catalog of species combined with a photo gallery, where each species is marked with:

1. Attributes that can be used to select species:
- Variants of names
— Geography (detailed to the mainland or part of the world, something like Europe, Asia (or combine to Eurasia), Africa, etc.)
- Forage plants

2. Field for a general description. Here, in a free form, interesting features of the species are noted in the opinion of the person describing them, for example, it appears in Europe one of the first or has a record size, characteristic features that distinguish the species from similar ones.

3. Photos at different stages, different variations, live and dried, in general, maximum variety.

In addition, you can upload any thematic articles, dictionaries, and so on as a supplement.

All photos, descriptions, and articles can be commented/discussed and, accordingly, changed/supplemented.

Please vote and tell us who thinks what about it.

Comments

01.05.2009 22:28, Peter Khramov

Why?
Like Kozma Prutkov: "You can't embrace the vast." IMHO, you should not chase the world wide popularity at the expense of the quality of your resource.

Ideally:
There is a website (technical platform).
There is an admin(s) (technical and partly organizational).
There is a curator(s) (scientific and partly organizational).
There are authors who provide information on the regions, groups, etc.that they are interested in.

As a result, there is a site where, depending on the composition of the authors, information is collected on certain groups of butterflies in certain regions.
But the site comes out pretty flawed. Because there is no curator(s), and almost all the information (except for photos) is published by me (although I am not a specialist), because there are no text authors on the site either.
If there are no authors for butterflies of any region, then there will be no authors for any of them taken separately.
I repeat once again that I should not be the author of special texts, because I do not have the appropriate qualifications for this.

This post was edited by Asar - 05/01/2009 22: 31

02.05.2009 14:40, Kharkovbut

Eugene, Maculinea arion really had no corrections, because there was no one to confirm.
Regarding curation - if you or someone else has a desire to regularly spend time-Well, write to the BOS, here in the subject or by mail...

What's there to confirm?..

Just look carefully at the 5 images that you have, and understand-these are different types (and there are even 3 different types). You can also compare it with other images in books or on the web.

As for the time - it really is not much, alas.

But if I notice any inaccuracies on your site , I'll let you know. Only you, too, please respond if you want someone to supervise this case. If in doubt, you can discuss it here or in the "definition" section.

Please don't take it personally - I'm really trying to help.

03.05.2009 21:47, bahurin

I will express my point of view. I don't pretend to be right.
1. A large resource cannot be infallible. I'm an idealist myself, but I have to put up with it. Errors are the result of an activity. Their number indicates the quality (the fewer they are, the better the resource).
2. A resource with a lot of errors is better than no information. A vivid example is Wikipedia (there are a lot of errors, but if you need something, look in the wiki).
3. Resource development - a balance between the speed of filling and reducing errors. New errors appear during the filling process, so you can't just focus on filling or fixing errors.

Now essentially:
1. If you don't have thousands of authors, you can try to find them. To do this, you need to allow anyone to write a text description for the view, attach any photos, etc. It is quite clear that this will lead to an increase in inaccurate descriptions and even hooliganism (they will write all sorts of indecent things), but again, incomplete and inaccurate information is better than its complete absence.
2. To correct inaccuracies, authors should be allowed to correct articles that have already been written. At the same time, there is a mechanism for regulating corrections in such a way that the revision introduced increases the accuracy of information.
3. If p1 and p2 are followed correctly, only the editorial part will remain for the administrator: spelling correction, blocking hooligans, etc.

PS resource lepidoptera.ru perhaps the best on butterflies in the Russian-language network, I often use it. I offer my free services to improve it (design, photos, content).

Likes: 3

04.05.2009 6:55, bahurin

According to the correction regulation mechanism, as an option:
Each user has a certain "status" depending on the number of written text articles, posted photos, and corrections made (the higher the status, the more articles and corrections were made by the user). Then everything is simple - the user can edit an article written by another user with a status no higher than himself. Example let's divide all users into "mere mortals" and "moderators". Ordinary mortals can write articles, post photos, edit each other as much as they want. But as soon as the article is edited by a moderator (a user who has edited many articles or received this status simply because a good specialist will not write garbage), ordinary mortals can no longer edit it, but only moderators can. Accordingly, articles edited by moderators contain fewer errors than articles of ordinary mortals. By increasing the number of status levels, the description will become more reliable, although I don't think you should do too much either, because this complicates the process. And of course, there is an administrator who simply closes the article from editing when it does not contain errors.

07.05.2009 19:13, Peter Khramov

While the forum was lying on the results of correspondence with Sergey, there is the following suggestion::

1. Division of authors into beginners and advanced ones. The second category includes authors who have made at least n changes/descriptions, as well as people who know in advance that they are specialists (at least on the basis of the same forum).
2. Advanced users have rights to edit texts with changes that immediately take effect. Beginners - offer their own changes/additions, their information appears not in the article itself, but in the discussion below it. If everything is confirmed , the info is added to the main article.
3. With this (and not with this) system, it is still not entirely clear how to display information sources. It turns out that it is better than mentioning in the text in the right places (for example, if the new information differs or even contradicts the old one) and a complete list of sources under the entire article, nothing has yet been invented.

I ask all interested parties to express their opinions on these points.

09.05.2009 18:02, bahurin

That's it. Only "any", probably, should still be registered, so that all the data is put down and leave less garbage. Apparently, we will stop at this option for now...

Registration is sacred.
It is also a good idea to implement the accumulation of statistics: places and dates of observations of a particular type. Only it is necessary in my opinion to save this information, but not to give it out in a " raw " form (it will be limited to, for example, the region or, for example, the south of the Moscow region, etc.).
Something like this:
papilio machaon was observed: below is a table of regions and dates from and to. I think such statistics will be very useful and at the same time will not reveal the "fish" places so that the crowd of thirsty people does not break and trample everything there. I can help you develop a statistical analysis algorithm that can reveal a lot of interesting things.

22.12.2009 15:16, Macroglossum

Registration is sacred.
It is also a good idea to implement the accumulation of statistics: places and dates of observations of a particular type. Only it is necessary in my opinion to save this information, but not to give it out in a " raw " form (it will be limited to, for example, the region or, for example, the south of the Moscow region, etc.).
Something like this:
papilio machaon was observed: below is a table of regions and dates from and to. I think such statistics will be very useful and at the same time will not reveal the "fish" places so that the crowd of thirsty people does not break and trample everything there. I can help you develop a statistical analysis algorithm that can reveal a lot of interesting things.

Rather than give lengthy crocs, it is better not to give them at all... And then really lomanuzza all on riazanschmnu and all povytaptyayut

This post was edited by Macroglossum - 12/22/2009 15: 17