What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Discuss: Nomenclature edits on forum posts

  • #22
What if the person made their flawed post and did not return for 6 months? What if they never came on the forum again? Then a PM would be pointless and the change would never be made.

Even more likely than that, the extra effort of the moderator doing that job comes to mind. And the possibility that some people just won't care enough to do the work and make the change so the post goes unmodified by anyone. Too much of that and those willing to put in the extra work may lose interest. Or maybe even the mod then comes across the post again, not sure if they had already addressed that one either sends another message to the user (who possibly gets upset about being messaged twice) or at least is more wasted volunteer time by that moderator.

Both of these are completely valid points. And I would add: the confusion/frustration factor for those people who are seeking information who are first-timers (or close to it) to this forum. I don't know how much traffic this site receives hour by hour, but there is the possibility of folks happening upon threads with nomenclature mistake between the time of writing and correction. This could lead to: 1) confusion or frustration upon the part of the visitor; or 2) the visitor -- if they are individuals who already have some knowledge of cps and are simply looking for a cohort of like minded individuals with whom to communicate -- coming to the conclusion that there are some very ignorant members here and thus not a forum worth joining. The increased wait time between the moderator's pm'ing the poster, and then the poster making the changes -- assuming the poster cares enough to do so -- compounds that possible issue.

Those are reasonable concerns. But you also face the potential scenario in which your members simply stop contributing valued content because they're insulted by this editing practice and don't care to set themselves up for more of it.

While I do hear what you're saying, Paul, I can't agree with you. If a person is that "thinned skin"/immature that they can't handle correction, then she/he has no business being on any forum.

Correction of errors as a moderator comes across them is more time efficient, and I don't see anything belittling about said correction being done directly by the mod. If the "red" makes folks see "red", then perhaps another color for the corrections would still make them visible without offending the poster's delicate sensibilities.
 
  • #23
Base, the reason why I continue to make mistakes is because I just don't care to learn to proper way to capelize and what not. To me, as long as the name of the plant is correct, I'm good.
 
  • #24
My two cents: Accuracy in nomenclature is a good thing but I don't think that is what's being disputed. It's the manner in which "correct" (scare quotes in deference to Cthulhu's objections above) nomenclature is policed by a single moderator.

Obsessively editing an entire thread, especially when said edits are curt and punctilious or appear in red in the member's post, is simply uncivil.

I feel that Joseph's taxonomic rigor might be better applied (and certainly more appreciated) at a scientific journal.

Yes. Precisely!

So - why has Joseph not contributed anything to this discussion?? I'm far more likely to find my way to middle ground if he were to make an effort to defend his position and explain his tactic - or at least add his voice to the discussion.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
This issue is one of style as opposed to substance, however it seems to me that the best solution lies in substance. The style here is offensive to some and not an issue to others. If the current debate is intended to determine whether or not this style of corrections should continue, a look at the substance of the totality of posts of those on respective sides of the issue would seem in order. And a bit of interpolation regarding the future outcomes of the two respective courses of action. The relative valuation of the posts I referred to is a judgment to be made by Andrew. The future outcomes I feel qualified to speak to. Course #1, the corrections continue. Those who have no problem with the corrections obviously have no problem. Those who take issue with the style are going to react in various ways, none of which I see as benefiting the community. Course #2 the style is changed. Corrections are still made, but in a way not offensive to some. Those who had no issue with the style will likely not miss it when it's gone. They're still getting the same information, and by the admission of at least some, all that matters is getting the right information. However the effects upon those who take issue with the style will no doubt benefit the community ss a whole.
 
  • #26
Wow - I almost made it through the thread without feeling a need to comment .... until I got to Dragonseye's post ... and while I respect Dragonseye, I respectfully must disagree.

For the most part, I've been able to see this general disagreement from the outside as JC hasn't altered any of my posts (of which I'm aware) 8^) - so I've been able to watch this unfold. Having been around for a while, I also have the benefit of having seen round one and also the slow changes history has wrought in general.
Those are reasonable concerns. But you also face the potential scenario in which your members simply stop contributing valued content because they're insulted by this editing practice and don't care to set themselves up for more of it.
While I do hear what you're saying, Paul, I can't agree with you. If a person is that "thinned skin"/immature that they can't handle correction, then she/he has no business being on any forum.

Correction of errors as a moderator comes across them is more time efficient, and I don't see anything belittling about said correction being done directly by the mod. If the "red" makes folks see "red", then perhaps another color for the corrections would still make them visible without offending the poster's delicate sensibilities.

Tenet 1 - TF should be a welcoming, enjoyable environment where people respect each other and have the opportunity to share information & learn. (strong opinion alert)

When I see experienced growers as well as truly kind-hearted souls (sorry Djoni - I'm calling you out), start to have an issue with something, I'll often pay attention. (Yes, some people are more intolerant & 'prickly' than others & that needs to be considered).

Accuracy has it's place - but so do freedom of expression & creativity. The argument has been made that people doing searches in the future may find portions of text incomprehensible if strict nomenclature guidelines are not followed. While in theory, this can be true but it has to be pretty bad & I'll argue that this is very easily the exception more than the rule. If true comprehension were the goal, then I would suggest that other posts should also be altered - such as:
Does entire now the story behind h. minor selection 1 h. minor burgundy black and h. minor big orange. I'm interacted in the bumber off seedlings it took to find them three (original creator's identity removed)
As mentioned by others in this thread, at some point, the type of corrections currently being done are less about accuracy & comprehension then they are about pedantry.

In the past, English language contributors had two choices for sharing their CP-related thoughts: Terra & CPUK. Now, there are at least six other CP forums in English as well as 3-5 high-quality non-English forums (easily accessible via Google translate) in addition to Facebook & Reddit offerings. Bottom line: people can easily move to other venues where they may feel more comfortable or valued.

I don't want to suggest that correct nomenclature has no value - far from it. I think that it is one aspect of any site & it's specific worth should be compared to all the other attributes of a site that the owner & contributors feel are important.
 
  • #27
What happens in the future when someone is private messaged about an error in his/her post and the person can't respond within a reasonable time frame? I do see the value in having the corrections made right away to avoid the spread of misinformation for new or existing members. But I also think people should be notified first, have a discussion to see if the correction is necessary and valid, and have a chance to make the corrections themselves. Should the poster be given maybe 24 hours to respond before the mods do the correction themselves? But that also seems to inconvenient the mods as they have to monitor time and stay on call when they can easily just edit themselves in a few seconds. Or we could offer the ability to edit other people's post to whim, cthulhu138, and other expert growers on terraform as a way to alleviate the mods if they are busy themselves? If the mods do end up having to make the correction themselves, how should the edits be displayed and written? Some people may respond negatively to the color red or the wording for the edit. Any suggestions?
 
Last edited:
  • #28
If corrections are absolutely needed then the creator of the post should be notified first before action is taken in view of the public. While I (and some others) may occasionally frequent this forum multiple times a day, only 24 hours is not enough time for many to be able to come in and make the necessary changes if it turns out a change is needed. However, a week may also be a little long, so somewhere in between might be good. And there should be discussion to make sure both parties (the poster and the moderator) understand the use for whatever name is chosen in the end.

I feel a need to make a comment of opinion of my own here as well: the bold red edits with the "not accepted" notes and such are over the top. Side notes of possibly a less intrusive color, and maybe a link to the used background nomenclature suffice. And it should be noted that a single database is NOT evidence enough to go in and make changes to other people's threads. One of the biggest issues recently has been the nomenclature of Sarracenia, especially hybrids. Yes, many of the names currently used were never "officially" described and published, however they are well documented, refer to specific crosses, and there is no confusion when using said names. And I feel it relevant to add that just in the last CPN edition, there is an article outlining the currently known and used names for natural hybrids, with given type descriptions and nomenclatural background, so declaring them invalid for this reason or other is pushing boundaries at this point. Similarly for the use of numerous Nepenthes hybrids, which have often been in place for years and are well documented even if not having been published in a proper journal somewhere. These naming shortcuts are easy and rarely have much confusion behind them, with the exception of many of the old Victorian names for the hookeriana x mirabilis hybrids, which are a special case and exception to the norm.
 
  • #29
Yes. Precisely!

So - why has Joseph not contributed anything to this discussion?? I'm far more likely to find my way to middle ground if he were to make an effort to defend his position and explain his tactic - or at least add his voice to the discussion.

Because, Joseph has already explained his points, in various threads, throughout the forums and you've already acknowledged one of my most recent on this topic, and in an encouraging way. Below this link is a quote of what you said in response to my post -> Nomenclature - it isn't that complicated

I don't know if its being "lackadaisical" or what, but the chronic misrepresentation of proper names is rampant, its true. So often people tend to abbreviate Latin names and generate perverse nicknames for plants, and all it does is obfuscate any genuine data. Most unhelpful.

I do admit that a few CP taxon are still in dispute. New updates to some names have been published and not yet accepted by everyone. This, however, is not uncommon. Whenever someone disagrees with my nomenclatural corrections, I welcome the dialogue thus generated. It is something I'm sure many passers-by or beginners can appreciate. I know, when I was a beginner I appreciated learning about those things. It demonstrates how dynamic our international plant naming systems can be. For instance, when I first began growing CP, Darlingtonia californica was known as Chrysamphora californica. This was one of my first experiences with the dynamics of CP names.

If I had to PM every poster over every nomenclatural correction, I'd be an extremely busy moderator. As it is, I've just been tweaking the nomenclature as I notice it in my normal skimming through the forum.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
If I had to PM every poster over every nomenclatural correction, I'd be an extremely busy moderator. As it is, I've just been tweaking the nomenclature as I notice it in my normal skimming through the forum.

If you havnt noticed, a majority of us don't appreciated the way you have been going about this. You havnt done it to me yet (that I know of), but I find your tactics extremely rude, degrading, and disrespectful.

Its obvious that not everyone feels this way, and that's fine, to each his own, but a majority of us do.

I meen come on...its really not that hard to pm sombody before changing THIER work.

I know this is an international forum but some of us live in a free country, where we have a right to free speech without being censored.

On another note, I do agree that having the correct information is important.
 
  • #31
Whenever someone disagrees with my nomenclatural corrections, I welcome the dialogue thus generated.

By editing people's writing and inserting bold red editors comments, you are not inviting dialog, you are being authoritarian. Your approach invites no dialog whatsoever. Lets be clear on one thing: I have nothing whatsoever against using correct (or "correct enough") nomenclature on forums - what I object to is your style of doing it. Its rude and pedantic. Drop the red "angry schoolmarm" notation and I think you'll have far fewer problems with the people here.
 
  • #32
If you havnt noticed, a majority of us don't appreciated the way you have been going about this. You havnt done it to me yet (that I know of), but I find your tactics extremely rude, degrading, and disrespectful.

Its obvious that not everyone feels this way, and that's fine, to each his own, but a majority of us do.

I meen come on...its really not that hard to pm sombody before changing THIER work.

I know this is an international forum but some of us live in a free country, where we have a right to free speech without being censored.

On another note, I do agree that having the correct information is important.

Point of order, CONGRESS shall pass no laws abridging free expression.......but the owner of an internet domain can censor anyone in any way for any or no reason.
 
  • #33
Let me try to clarify my issue with the edit of my post since I don’t think I got this across clearly before, and I did make the mistake of acting on emotion concerning someone altering my words without talking to me first without clarifying why I was upset in the post I made following the edit. It had nothing to do with a “sensitivity” issue on my part, it was merely a strong opinion about changing another persons written word without communication or permission from the author.

I did not take Joseph’s edit as a personal attack on me, I appreciated the correction and told him so in a PM, I simply took issue that there was no communication with me about it beforehand. The reason I took issue with that is because I feel strongly that nobody should have license to alter another person’s written word without permission by the author no matter what the intention is, no matter what the subject or arena. I think Joseph should PM the author about the nomenclature error and instead of altering a post simply write his own post about the correction he thinks should be made. My irritation had nothing to do with feeling personally attacked, it did not make me feel ignorant. In fact, I was embarrassed for myself for being sloppy in spelling a plant name incorrectly and leaving off the single quotes.

Ha, I am pulling 60 years of age, have raised two children (one of which mentally disabled), and have been through a lot of life-changing traumas/events that come with age…I don’t think I could have survived this long without developing a thick skin, or compassion for others, especially in the virtual world. I think Joseph’s intentions are good, it is just the way he deploys those intentions that I feel needs tweaking.

"And that is all I have to say about that..." I have plants to water.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
If I had to PM every poster over every nomenclatural correction, I'd be an extremely busy moderator. As it is, I've just been tweaking the nomenclature as I notice it in my normal skimming through the forum.

Woah ,that comment is really dismissive and self-absorbed. If you don't have time to respect the majority request, then maybe you should step down as a moderator and leave this job to someone else. This isn't Joseph's forum, it's terraforum. Just because you're too "busy" doesn't warrant everyone to place your needs before other people. Especially when most people object to the way you're doing it.

We've also acknowledged that moderators are humans and have a life to themselves. Which is why I proposed having other veteran and expert growers help you. But man.........
 
Last edited:
  • #35
I feel strongly that nobody should have license to alter another person’s written word without permission by the author no matter what the intention is, no matter what the subject or arena.

Thank you, DJ.
 
  • #36
Because, Joseph has already explained his points, in various threads, throughout the forums and you've already acknowledged one of my most recent on this topic, and in an encouraging way. Below this link is a quote of what you said in response to my post -> Nomenclature - it isn't that complicated



I do admit that a few CP taxon are still in dispute. New updates to some names have been published and not yet accepted by everyone. This, however, is not uncommon. Whenever someone disagrees with my nomenclatural corrections, I welcome the dialogue thus generated. It is something I'm sure many passers-by or beginners can appreciate. I know, when I was a beginner I appreciated learning about those things. It demonstrates how dynamic our international plant naming systems can be. For instance, when I first began growing CP, Darlingtonia californica was known as Chrysamphora californica. This was one of my first experiences with the dynamics of CP names.

If I had to PM every poster over every nomenclatural correction, I'd be an extremely busy moderator. As it is, I've just been tweaking the nomenclature as I notice it in my normal skimming through the forum.

This is the only forum I've been on where correcting factual errors was a moderator responsibility. Normally moderators are there to keep things civil.
 
  • #37
I found it annoying, TBH.
 
  • #38
If I had to PM every poster over every nomenclatural correction, I'd be an extremely busy moderator.

As ps3isawesome mentioned, perhaps this is a job then that should be divided up among the moderators, if correction of factual errors is to be designated as one of their duties. You don't necessarily need to take on the job of correcting everyone's errors by yourself - that will undoubtedly be a staggering amount of work.

I think that it is much more preferable to split up the job and do it by PM than to push it all onto you. This will avoid offending a good amount of people here, and also prevent threads from derailing as several already have.
 
  • #39
If I had to PM every poster over every nomenclatural correction, I'd be an extremely busy moderator. As it is, I've just been tweaking the nomenclature as I notice it in my normal skimming through the forum.

This does not mean that I wouldn't do so, if that's what Andrew decides.

Though it seems I alone am presently receiving the credit for correcting nomenclature, I am not the only moderator that does so.

-------------------------------
If Andrew chooses to run TFs like a democracy. He has every right to do so. Or, if he chose to do otherwise, that's entirely up to him. I'm a member of several other internet forums, through various of my other interests. In some of those, I'm also a moderator. I think it very progressive of Andrew that he works with the membership of TF in this way. Most other forums I'm associated with, simply delete any posts that discuss moderation, pro or con, and send warnings to members who made the posts - like mini dictatorships.

-------------------------------------
Even if the majority of posters to this thread, have a certain opinion, that may not necessarily be indicative of the majority of TF members, or it might be.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
This does not mean that I wouldn't do so, if that's what Andrew decides.

Though it seems I alone am presently receiving the credit for correcting nomenclature, I am not the only moderator that does so.

-------------------------------
If Andrew chooses to run TFs like a democracy. He has every right to do so. Or, if he chose to do otherwise, that's entirely up to him. I'm a member of several other internet forums, through various of my other interests. In some of those, I'm also a moderator. I think it very progressive of Andrew that he works with the membership of TF in this way. Most other forums I'm associated with, simply delete any posts that discuss moderation, pro or con, and send warnings to members who made the posts - like mini dictatorships.

-------------------------------------
Even if the majority of posters to this thread, have a certain opinion, that may not necessarily be indicative of the majority of TF members, or it might be.

On an internet forum, expressing one's opinion is akin to voting. Those who don't vote don't get their voices heard in the real world, nor do those who fail to express their opinions get heard online. I contend that the opinions of those who don't express them are as meaningful as the political wishes of those who don't vote. Which is to say they are meaningless. If the opinions of members are going to be taken into account in making a decision, the only members who should be considered are those who express their opinion. The "silent majority" gets what it asks for.
 
Back
Top