What do you think of the idea of allowing the originator of threads to rename them? I'm thinking particularly of plant id threads, where all that's in the title is "What plant is this?" No-one browsing through the posting titles would have an idea what the thread is about, yet in many of them, the plant has been identified. One query that I posted last month was about the 30th query on the same plant, but I didn't choose the right words to search on and didn't find any of them until I had the name. Of course, it would help if people could be persuaded to put some characteristics of the plant in question into the Title. I think our Ornamental Cherry Cultivars ID forum has good examples of that, but since I'm the moderator, I've also replaced the "What cherry?" part of the title with the name once it's identified. I do not think Daniel should have to rename all those query threads once the plant is identified. Could the originators do it? Would anyone other than me do it if we were able to?
Ok, it's now possible for people to edit thread titles for a much longer period of time. Re: plant ID specifically - with thread prefixes, it is (in theory) possible to have a thread prefix called "resolved" which can be added via an edited thread title by the original poster (or an admin). I'm not sure whether the benefits outweight the drawbacks -- if something is resolved, people may not look (and miss out on the chance of some random learning). Besides, there are those rare occasions when something is "resolved", and it really isn't. It might be better off for someone to start a thread that I'd sticky entitled "Commonly Asked About Plants for ID", grab copyright-free images to illustrate, and ask people to READ THIS FIRST -- in an attempt to reduce the number of common questions. In fact, I could do something similar to this now with the new "notices" feature -- display a small bit of HTML at the top of the plant ID forums with thumbnails of commonly asked about plants to new registrants. I'm thinking Dracaena marginata is a candidate.
Also Impatiens glandulifera, which is the one I posted 4 weeks ago. That thumbnails idea seems perfect, Daniel - it's so hard to find out if anyone has already posted the same thing, and I really tried and missed all those previous ones (25 I said in my original post). I don't see how I can edit that thread title - how much longer is "much longer"? Or did you just mean that it would be possible if you wanted to implement it?
Yes, thank you. I got used to explicitly changing thread names via moderator tools; if I knew about editing the first post, I'd forgotten. That worked fine.
I would hate to find the name put in the title, after it had been identified. Part of the fun is to never know what is next on plant id forum. To open it, look, see if I know it(no cheating by scrolling down to find the answer!)It would be like doing a crossword with some of the answers in!!!) Agree with Daniel's views. Praps in a beginners guide to the site, it could be suggested, that before posting, folk have a look at some of the most recent threads . Seasonal plants often pop up like a rash almost one after the other!
Yes, but you get to do that on the stumpers forum. I thought the plant id forum was for people who want to identify their plants and people who want to help them, not play games. It's so daunting to see all those pages of postings, many of which have your plant, but there's no practical way to find them. But I'm almost always using the forum as someone who needs an identification, so I'm looking for help in the previous posting titles. It's true I'm not considering what you're doing there, and I am grateful you're there. But as often as you're there, you'll get to do your quiz when the posting first comes out. Maybe I have the wrong idea. It never occurred to me that you all who know these plants really liked giving the same answer to the same question month after month. I thought we were supposed to try to avoid posting something that's already been answered. But it takes a long time to look though a whole bunch of postings with no clue in the titles of what they're asking about. If the same plant name kept coming up in the titles, people might get the idea that it's something a lot of people inquire about, so maybe they'd check one of the postings out before posting their own? Anyway, for sure, not many people would edit their posts to put in the name. You'll still have plenty of fun on that forum.
It is not a game to me. I like to test my knowledge. Very often I find overnight all the posts have already been answered. Who is going to make the decision on the right name? It has been known for us all to get it wrong! Many folk will just pop in, ask their question and go,they do not return. I really cannot see how having a list of threads all titled "Impatiens" would help anyone, who has no idea what an Impatiens even looks like! I love helping answer queries here, equally I am learning so much. Would any of us do it if we did not enjoy doing so? Another thought, a lay person thinking of asking for an id., when faced with a forum full of Latin names would probably take fright and go elsewhere. They are unlikely to read the advice Daniel provides.
I agree with young Luddite: The same plants keep turning up - perhaps it would be worth doing a trawl of the ID's and coming up with a list of the top twenty or so enquiries and then creating a note with them all listed together with pictures and notes on their identification? If this was thought a good idea, I would be happy to do the initial trawl and come up with the top twenty list. Ciao BrianO
I agree on the Latin names being not too helpful. I did rename my post with the Latin name, but then I thought that maybe using "Policeman's Helmet" would have been more descriptive and more likely for someone trying to id the same plant to think it might be it.
I also agree with Luddite on this one. Anyway, my understanding is that when you do a search, if the name of the plant is in the thread or the title that it will still be found, I think when you search you can search postings as well as thread titles, from memory anyway... Ed
Yes, that's how I found all those other postings, once I had the name. But before I posted my query, I browsed all the likely looking threads and queried on some words I thought were characteristic. Where there was nothing in the title or it didn't say anything that sound remotely likely, I didn't bother opening the posting. It would have saved me a lot of time in the browsing and checking the search results to see names in the titles that were things I knew were not in the running.
I've been fuming lately about the culture to not rename threads. I thought about it again when I read Ron's statement in another thread. It's not the poster's fault that they can't find all the posts about the thing they're asking about. They all have titles like "what's this?" and the preview paragraph text has a description of how they acquired it from their friend. I know if you just don't know what it is, the name in the thread title is not going to help, but the name and a description in the thread title could give you a running start. For one thing, you could rule out the conifer postings when you're asking about a flower. Even when I know what I'm asking about, doing a query on the name brings up several threads that have nothing to do with the plant, but just have a passing mention of it, something I can't tell until I open each one. Some of the main arguments for not renaming threads were: 1 - People can't find the posting if the title changes. It's not like the person who titled a thread "Could someone help?" is going to recognize their thread from that title and be able to find it again. Even people following a thread - how can you distinguish the "Could someone help?" thread from the "Please help" thread? 1a - People can't find the posting if the title keeps changing. I can see waiting some reasonable time, like a week or two after the last posting, until it seems that the last word on an ID might really be the last word. Sure people occasionally come up with corrections much later than that - years later even, or the plant name changes! That doesn't happen often enough to make it worth not allowing the titles to be changed, and changed again if required. 2 - People like testing themselves. People who want to test their knowledge can do it in the week or two before the title is changed. You want a month? Fine. To me, leaving the titles as is makes the statement that what goes on here is for the moment and has no further use. There's no point encouraging people to look for a previous posting on their plant if they don't know words to query and don't know how to find postings. If a lot of the postings had descriptive words in the titles, even browsing previous postings would help people find commonly queried plants. I'm not talking about whose time it would take to do what renaming. The first issue is whether it would be OK to do it. I got a lot of grief from members on the threads I renamed. OK, some I renamed a few times too often. I could follow some rules.
The other day I answered a Plant id thread, I was able to id it, so I answered as usual ..." Looks like xxxx." The poster them changed the thread title to xxxx. It then looked as if I was providing an answer to something they already knew! I do agree it would help to have Conifer/ flower in the title, but who is to change the titles? It is hard enough to get newbies to put something descriptive and original other than "Plant id needed." I do not agree with changing the title on 3rd party threads, as on the very interesting discussion on this thread...... http://www.botanicalgarden.ubc.ca/forums/showthread.php?p=262126#post262126 Far better to start a new discussion with a new title.
Yes, better to discuss that one here. You mention "who is to change the titles?", but that's a separate issue. I know you and others do not agree with changing them at all, so thanks for replying to this. You commented in that thread that I hijacked it. I deliberately chose to add to the "Could someone help?" thread about Puya because there were interesting comments in that thread that was already about Puya. For me, the most information about the same thing you can have in one place, the better for collecting and imparting information. That somebody couldn't identify some plant and now has a name is not the important aspect of the post. If that's all it's about, it's a dead post, particularly with that title. I don't think that's really a problem. Obviously the person asked the question for a reason. But the person probably thinks the way I do - what was once a question has been elevated to a source of information for other people. There's so much information here, but it's so hard to get at. Surely, there's no point in collecting it all if you can't find it as a source of info when you need it. Search results are very difficult to use because where there are a lot of hits, it's hard to tell which are the postings that are really about what you're searching for. At least with the name in the title, that would be a lot easier. I love Daniel's suggestion below: That would address Ron's comment that started me off on this again.
A good idea that should be developed. When (if?) the identification forum proper is restarted a photo gallery of commonly asked species could be added. The gallery could potentially be subdivided into broad categories such as "deciduous trees", "conifers", "perennials", "annuals", "vines", "houseplants", "edibles" etcetera and entries could be added under the botanical name with permanent redirects from the common name(s). This would both help people looking to find an ID to answer their own question before posting a thread, and also provide a resource for the identifier to provide quick links to pictures to confirm identities of these plants. As for renaming third party threads, that would be unethical in the extreme, essentially it is putting words into someone else's mouth. If any person wishes to rename another's thread it would surely be better all round to start a new thread with the title they prefer.