New photogallery

So that's what photos of biotopes are for. And the name of the biome itself is not applied, but in combination with the most typical representatives of the vegetation cover, for example, the steppe can be feather-grass, sagebrush-prutnyakov, mixed grass... Well, no one forbids identifying subtypes in biotopes by geographical feature.

That's exactly what I'm interested in. I.e., what combinations of determinant words can I use? After all, you can call the biotope "mixed-grass, with young coniferous undergrowth on sandy-loamy soil with a focal growth of wormwood from the northern Nurgush ridge", or you can just "mixed-grass" - a completely different degree of concretization. It turns out that we need to somehow restrict this place geographically. We come back to the topic about points and their radii (or something like that). (I just want to smooth out all the obvious rakes in advance; I'm not just arguing for the sake of argument=)

"mixed grass, with young coniferous undergrowth on sandy-loamy soil with a focal growth of wormwood from the northern Nurgush ridge".

Yes, an amazing degree of concreteness. If that's the case, it's really easier to link photos to points than to create an atlas or catalog of biotopes. Because in the end, so many types and subtypes of biotopes can be distinguished that there may be more of them than the actual biological species that live on their territory. For even just a large lichen-covered boulder in the same "mixed grass with young coniferous adolescents and so on steppe" can already be considered a separate biotope, since the conditions on its surface and the composition of flora and fauna are very different from those on the soil surface and may differ somewhat from those on neighboring rock outcrops. And this already smacks of something like this.

I think the issue of biotopes is still too much. So far, at least a set of landscape photos, but so that you can link many photos of insects to each landscape photo (like points). And you could also knit with dots.

Peter, here is the problem ( In the Opera 12.18 x64 browser (the latest Opera browser on the native Presto engine), this case looks like this: But in the Mozilla Firefox 47.0.1 browser (relatively fresh), it looks fine: You need to make it look as it should in the "outdated" Opera browser on the Presto engine, too. The fact is that this engine (native Opera) is my favorite engine and this browser is the main working one. In short: the new gallery doesn't look right in all browsers. This is not good (

By the way. It would be a good idea to make a public, self-updating list of indexed sites, so that everyone can clearly see which of their favorite sites are not yet active, and they can be suggested accordingly.

It seems to me that we should try not to produce entities and link photos of the landscape and / or biotope to a point. Then you will be able to view not only the geographical location of the capture of a particular instance, but also a photo of a specific landscape. Then a new entity should appear - the page of a specific point. With all photos of instances and landscapes linked to it. Plus, you can describe on this page, if desired, and the composition of the soil, and describe the flora, etc.

It would be a good idea to make a public self-updating list of indexed sites.

Yes, this is already planned.

link a landscape and/or biotope photo to a point

That's right, let's make a link. But the question is more relevant to situations when there is a landscape photo, it is attached to a view or other taxon, but there are no points.

Vasily, try a full page refresh Ctrl+F5 and take a look at the neighboring pages, see if there are photos there or something is also wrong. This is a very strange situation for you.

I've tried everything. I updated it, cleaned the cache, and deleted cookies. It's all a mess. Moreover, this situation is observed on the site only with this-the newest gallery and nowhere else. The browser is somewhat specific for me. Using the Presto engine: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presto_ (Opera) I am a fan of this engine and basically do not switch to the new engines that Opera currently uses. I don't like them ) P.S. Even disabling Outpost Firewall (firewall) and filtering AdMuncher (banner cutter) do not help.

It uses a relatively new technology, but it affects the positioning of blocks, and not the display of images as such. Try to set the size of 80px in the gallery settings again. I have a relatively new Opera (already on the Chrome engine), everything is normal in it, so I can't check it at home.

While the court is still working, the new gallery already has more than 500,000 photos, and the number of taxa on them is slowly approaching 50.000.

At 80px, it's not much better (((Try to swing it yourself at your leisure: http://www.opera.com/download/guide/?ver=12.18 Maybe you will understand why such problems.

If you click on"?" next to "Size", the tooltip is titled "Gender"

In Yandex browser, the size of my thumbnails doesn't change. In firefox, the size changes.

Peter, I just installed Opera version 42.0.2393.94 for fun and it looks fine in it. Here, in my opinion, there is a clear discrepancy between this gallery and the Presto engine. I.e., different engines may have their own problems. That's what you need to work out first. And all sorts of ruffles-toys will wait. This is a serious question.

If you click on"?" next to "Size", the tooltip is titled "Gender"

Thanks for the note, corrected it.

In my Yandex browser, the size of thumbnails doesn't change

Stranno, in other browsers on the Chrome engines, everything is normal. I'll try to check with Yandex later. Ivan, if possible, check in browser settings if JavaScript is enabled, and if there are any restrictions...

1. Landscapes (this has already been discussed, and probably needs to be) 2. Genitals (also discussed, but still) 3. Distribution maps in the form of images 4. Scans of primary descriptions.

1. Landscapes - it's stupid to fill up view pages with landscape photos, but it's correct to link a landscape photo to a placemark on the map 2. Genitals - YES!!! I like it))) 3. What do you mean by area maps??? It probably should be in the description on the view page anyway. 4. Primary descriptions-YES!!! You can simply link to the first description page. I don't need third - party photos. You need to make the keys determinative, - many very useful

PS. I know that my position will be subject to many attacks, but this is MY opinion, and I will not change it)

I often asked in the evening prayers: "Father of the universe, I pray: I often regret what I have said, and rarely that I am silent." (C)

In my Yandex browser, the size of thumbnails doesn't change

Now I tried it - everything works fine. Probably some kind of glitch was. P.S. The size has stopped changing again. P. P. S. Without entering the taxon name in the search bar, the size changes. After entering it, it stops changing. It's at my office. Then I'll check at home.

1. Landscapes - it's stupid to fill up view pages with landscape photos, but it's correct to link a landscape photo to a placemark on the map

Once again: this is not about view pages, but about the presence of such photos in the gallery in general. If they are available in principle, then where, in what quantity and under what conditions to display them, and where and when not-a matter of technology, and can change five times a day. Up to the point that you can set up personal settings for everyone.

2. Genitals-YES!!! I like it)))

:--))

3. What do you mean by area maps??? It probably should be in the description on the view page anyway.

I gave Ivan an example there. When there is a map of distribution in a certain area in graphical form. Here are some examples: https://insecta.pro/photos?cap=Carcharodus+alceae

4. Primary descriptions-YES!!! You can simply link to the first description page.

The question is specifically about the photo presentation.

I don't need third - party photos.

How do you see the global difference between third-party and non-third-party photos? Interesting.

You need to make the keys definitive - many people will find them very useful

To the madness of the brave we sing a song! If someone does, it will be awesome. But I don't think so. Especially as the first locomotive.

I often asked in the evening prayers:

Everything is normal, Alexander and I discussed it on the phone, everything is not so bad!)

Without entering the taxon name in the search bar, the size changes. After entering it, it stops changing

Oh! That's an important point. Indeed, there was a glitch, and it's not in the browser. Now fixed. PS. >56000 taxa. Of these, 311 are for Papilio*;--)

Yeah, it worked!

PS. >56000 taxa. Of these, 311 are for Papilio*;--)

I don't see it. As I think and many who have browsers not on "googlodvizhkah" ((

I don't see it. As I think and many who have browsers not on "googlodvizhkah" ((

There is no reason to think so. Everything works correctly on FF, IE, Chrome, Safari, modern Opera and other" browsers " based on Chrome and Firefox. and on everything compatible with the above engines. I.e. more than 98% of non-mobile browsers that come to our site. I understand that you have a problem with the display, and I'll try to figure it out. But over time, you will still have to switch to some supported platform, there is no escape from this...

But over time, you will still have to switch to some supported platform, there is no escape from this...

But not now, but only when I feel an urgent need for it. Currently, I don't see such a need. Presto is my engine for Opera and it will still be relevant for a long time.

I understand that you have a problem with the display, and I'll try to figure it out.

First, specifically noticed in the new gallery: 1) by the "Questionable" selection parameter, it allows you to go only to the 1st page, when you go to any other page, it is empty, 2) search by gender also gives you only the 1st page, when you go to any other page, it throws you into the general gallery, 3) on the first page of search results by gender – female - there are photos of two pairs with the designation ♀ (while I was writing, photos were added, and these 2 pairs went to another page, it is impossible to see), 4) for a number of reasons, it was very convenient for me to switch the size of thumbnails to "large" (with captions). Peter, I haven't written anything until today.k: I don't think it's right to discuss something that has absolutely no heart in it from the very beginning. You know my opinion about such an expansion of the gallery, and you have expressed it more than once, including in a service post in June. It hasn't changed, as I also told you at the end of December. Even if it remained in the singular) It doesn't make sense to repeat yourself. But the gallery appeared in the test version – and there were questions. I didn't expect that the gallery would be flooded with thumbnails with links to third-party resources for those taxa that have enough high-quality photos in our own gallery. Apparently, I misunderstood something in the preliminary discussions. I thought that the gallery would be filled with images (links) from third-party resources only for those taxa that we don't have photos for. It is not very clear why we need, for example, Alcis repandata or Thymelicus lineola, besides "DUBIOUS" (?), if there are somewhere 40 and 25 of them in our gallery, respectively. Why do I need images defined only before the family from third-party resources?? (moreover, I looked at several – they are quite definable at least up to the genus, if you look in more detail - then up to the species) We have a lot of our own undefined ones. Why multiply?

Soon, external photos will be able to be annotated and transferred to other taxa in the same way as internal ones.

And who will do it and when? Here, there is not enough time and general effort to clean up several thousand of your undefined ones on the site.. But why do we need such third-party garbage, even if it is "TRUSTED" three times? http://eol.org/data_objects/32278203 http://eol.org/data_objects/28588186 http://eol.org/data_objects/30071575 http://eol.org/data_objects/28588171 They struggled with their poor-quality pictures, and now what..? ( I agree with what Dmitry wrote, but all this could have been arranged within the framework of the previous gallery. So far, so good.

Irina, by points:

by selecting the "Questionable" option, it only lets you go to the 1st page

Thanks for fixing it.

searching by gender also gives only the 1st page

Fixed it.

photo of two pairs with the designation ♀

The same is true on pages 6, 74, and 122 of the " old " gallery for "our" photos.

it is convenient to switch the size of thumbnails to "large" (with captions)

You can do this, but only for "our" photos, because copyright.

Even if it remained in the singular)

Not, not in the only one :-- ) But I try to inform people on my phone. For the most part, it works. By the way, it would be nice to call if we have a misunderstanding about the general concept of a gallery combined with external search.

My brief summary (despite all the phone calls). I don't see any point in combining two galleries into one. You can leave two galleries independently of each other (someone may need the second one for ease of searching on the web). And name them like: "Site Gallery" and "Gallery of insect images on the web" Only this will allow you to smooth out the mess that is already gradually emerging on the site. Extra photos in the author's gallery are definitely not needed, and the robot pumps garbage from the network with a machine gun above the roof. Peter, I think you looked at the links that Irina gave? I can throw such junk on the site as much as I want from my computer (full of bad photos), without any robots. Should I, Lee? Yes, and I personally find it convenient to work with the old gallery. As a moderator, I absolutely refuse to work with the new gallery, even if it supports my browser. I don't want to dig into this "national hodgepodge" and that's it. The site has enough of its own "internal" cases.

I strongly suggest to see the forest for the trees.

Peter, make a button in the LC that would allow you to completely disable the display of photos from the outside, because, as you can see, the new gallery is like a bone in the throat for some people and these people are unlikely to compromise.

But why do we need such third-party garbage, even if it is "TRUSTED" three times? http://eol.org/data_objects/32278203 http://eol.org/data_objects/28588186

Here from similar photos and I also have one place on fire. Such photos offend my taste as a macrophotographer, and I don't like to look at them. Well, it didn't work out - don't publish, damn it, so no, they need to show what a terrible talent they have. I even got better photos on my first soap dish for 3 thousand.

Once again, apparently I'm clumsy in writing. By landscape. As far as I understand, maps on the site are already working ( for points). Therefore, it would be good to link the landscape photo to the placemark on the map. As far as I understand, this is technically possible. I moved my mouse over the map placemark and saw a real photo at this point in the world. On the genitals, there seems to be no objection. The question of where to get photos of medications. Area maps by REGION are too much for me. At best, the general range, and if there are pages of subspecies, then everything is generally clear. Primary descriptions. Why use a photo if you can specify a link and not have any copyright issues? The difference between third-party and non-third-party services. Ours and kolkhoz. Our photos have been reviewed, identified, discussed, and so on. And I'll look for everything in a row and in the search engine. As for the keyed locomotive, I sent you the Eurema Thailand identification keys.

User Ivan Smith came to the site. He uploaded 500,000 photos. In addition to the actual photos of insects, there are also photos of landscapes, photos of primary descriptions, and photos of maps. The labor cost of setting the tag "this is a landscape photo" or "this is a map photo" or "this is a first description photo" is approximately equal to the labor cost of deleting these photos. Should I mark these photos and put them in separate categories, or just delete them? And among them there are photos that are not defined to the point of view, there are photos of poor quality. But there should be no questions here. Because such photos are loaded in the usual gallery. Yes, there are more of these. It's good.

What is the true half-lam phot??? And where are they?

Something with quoting does not come out, the computer writes and it turns out a clean place

Something with quoting does not come out, the computer writes and it turns out a clean place

Alexander, you need to copy the text and paste it between the tags that appear after clicking the "Quote" button. Everything is simple here.

User Ivan Smith came to the site. He uploaded 500.000 photos... /// and so on ///

This is not actual information, but a kind of metaphor that reflects the situation with the new gallery and shows it in a slightly different light.

Ugums, Ivan explained everything correctly.

Bad photos infuriate you. But you can't do anything about them. The only option is to teach the server to rank images by their volume from the most "heavy" and down the list to the most "light", because as the mass of the photo increases, the probability that it will be bad decreases. Because the more detailed the photo is, the heavier it is, and vice versa. In theory, it will be possible to teach the computer to determine the quality of photos in automatic mode, but before that, we still have to go to the sky.