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

adnedarn

I'm growing CPs in the Desert of Tucson, Az
Admin
Hello everyone! First off... This will be a respectful discussion, there will not be personal attacks or in general childish behavior, period.

I would like to open the discussion of moderator nomenclature edits within the posts of TerraForums. I can't quite understand the disagreement of a group of people here that seem to have an issue with the editing of their posts for proper name use. Sure, these forums are fairly casual but I think we should all aim for correctness whenever possible. Using proper names and name form seems to be a no brainer. Many of us have gotten plants from others with some strange writing on the tag wondering what it all means, heck we probably even passed that same tag information forward when we gave away or traded off that plant which of course is never a good plan and only causes more future problems. If it's so easy to use proper spelling and such for the names, why not do it? And if we are too lazy to write it out or simply don't know don't know the proper method, why not be willing to accept the help of others that are willing to help you with it. Once you know it, you can easily start using that information in your own posts and most importantly fix your labels!

I think it is important that we remember that many people browse through these forums without an account, not only yesterday and today... but hopefully many years in the future. It could only be helpful to have as much of the information here correct as possible and it is a resource for information, including the proper names of plants. I admit I'm not as perfect on nomenclature as I should be, and I more often than I would like to admit, don't write out the names exactly correct... But I also have zero problem with someone showing me the proper way to do it. I've been pointed a few times to my store for things that were not correct, and I appreciate every single one of them. And to be honest, Joseph is who I asked way back when I first opened my store to please look it over and see if he saw any errors. Speaking of Joseph, back before his absence he did this same kind of work and I only recall appreciation for all the extra time he put in to make sure the names on the forum were correct, or at least keep the discussion of nomenclature active.

Some examples of this work: Writing plant names- revisted 2011 (posted 1-11-2011)

And even this one, from 12-17-2002!! If I recall correctly this forum was created back in 2001 by the way.
Names! what's in a name?

I'm not sure if people think these are personal attacks since they don't remember them being done before (or maybe you weren't active back when Joseph was before... Previously known as Pinguiculaman BTW if that rings a bell). I can see how not seeing these edits, to all the sudden seeing the edits may make it seem like you are being singled out, but even before Joseph came back recently (It's nice to be back Not a Number was doing some of this work as well.

Anyway! What I want to cover here is:
If you do or don't like these edits, why?
Have discussion of why proper name use is so important.

I aim to find a universal way that corrections can be made so that the correct information is posted/on the forum. I guess it might be since they could look like a public scolding of sorts so maybe make it so it can't be seen that moderator edits have been done? etc....

Thanks as always!
Andrew
 
I don't see any issue with having mistakes like that corrected, but the way it is being done is completely wrong. Sending a pm asking the OP to change their post is entirely sufficient. Its one thing to bulldoze someone's post with corrections, but its even worse when the corrections being made are sometimes antiquated or just wrong.
 
I think that there wouldn't really be a problem with moderators maintaining correct nomenclature usage (to a reasonable extent) if not for two problems.

The first is simply that some of the edits have been pointed out as incorrect, probably based on outdated information.

The second is that most people here are competent adults and are independent enough to edit their own posts if informed of the error. Jumping in and directly editing someone's post is rather demeaning when the same correction could be achieved from a simple PM because it not only shouts out the errors, but is taken as implying that the author is not competent to edit his or her own post for nomenclature corrections. It is as if you boarded a plane, and the fight attendants came around to put your seatbelt on you and stash your baggage instead of telling you and letting you do it yourself.
 
I agree that using proper nomenclature is important, its just the way he goes about correcting them that I disagree with.
If he just pmed the op suggesting the corrections, I think ppl would be a lot more appreciative then when he just jumps in and edits THIER threads without saying anything first.

Also, that would give room for error on his part too, rather then just editing someone's post with incorrect information.

That's just my 2 cents.

Thanks for asking Andy
Travis
 
I don't know the background on this thread, but I'm going to jump in and give a thought:

Sending a pm asking the OP to change their post . . .

. . . correction could be achieved from a simple PM . . .

If he just pmed the op suggesting . . .

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.

Just a thought to twist you a little. :D
 
I admit I'm not as perfect on nomenclature as I should be, and I more often than I would like to admit, don't write out the names exactly correct... But I also have zero problem with someone showing me the proper way to do it.

Andrew

Therein lies the distinction, and its a significant one: we are capable adults and all we ask is that we be asked to submit corrections to posts we make, not have someone come in and edit our content without consent. Joseph is NOT showing people how to correct their submissions - he is doing it for them. We don't need the Nomenclature Police - we just need a discreet private communication offering suggestions for greater accuracy and correctness. If a moderator steps in and makes corrections on another member's behalf, it says "you aren't intelligent enough to make these corrections yourself, so Mommy is going to do it for you." No thank you. We deserve a bit more respect than that.

Whats next? Are you going to send the Chat Police into the chatbox now as well, to correct everyone when they abbreviate genera to "Sarrs" and "Neps"??!

Thank you Andrew, for having the courage to open up a discussion about this. I know I'm not the only one who has found this editing practice to be abrasive and annoying.
 
I don't know the background on this thread, but I'm going to jump in and give a thought:







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.

Just a thought to twist you a little. :D


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.
 
Last edited:
I consider the corrections done in red to grab attention as showing me, I wasn't asking for a private message. When I see that, I see what was fixed, and why, and I know for next time. I don't consider this any type of disrespect as "mommy doing it for me" or saying I'm not smart enough to do it myself at all.

No, the chatbox is clearly very very informal and in no way hangs around as informational to the public... You even have to be registered and logged in to see it. Working to make sure things written there correctly clearly has no benefit to anyone.
Andrew
 
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.

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.
 
  • #10
I don't think anyone is stating that we should not use proper names. But I do echo the sentiments that it appears as if the edits are done behind the members' backs because we don't know any better...or something to that effect. That seems a bit dramatic.

I wouldn't even care if it was done in public as a responding post in the thread. That way everyone could see the suggested change even if the OP "did not return for 6 months." So long as it doesn't derail the thread and turn into an aggressive nomenclature argument, I don't see why the discussion would have to be done in PM...although I guess I see why people prefer the privacy angle if they want to do it themselves.

I do agree that the way it's been handled so far is not ideal, but appreciate official dialogue being started instead of allowing people to continue bickering.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Sorry for the delay in starting the thread... We have been discussing it in the mod forum since it came up, so please don't think the concern went under the rug. I figured talking about it with all of you was a good idea at this point.
Andrew
 
  • #12
I had a recent thread that was heavily edited, and I still disagree with the "corrected" version.

I stated my opinion, posted evidence of such etc
I respect their change, but I will now avoid using names altogether rather than use a name that was considered obsolete 10 yrs ago.
There are other members who have said thing to me in private.

The "corrected" version is no longer even used by ICPS or cpphotofinder

Such heavy editing of a thread should be done only after PM'ing the OP IMHO
Simple matter of respect.
 
  • #13
I personally find that Joseph's methods of obsessive nomenclature "corrections" are not helpful to the community in the least bit. There are better ways of going about this rather than pirating members posts with "[Not an accepted name.]" edits or just deciding that he is right (which he often isn't) and taking it upon himself to edit their posts for them. I feel that this passive aggressive behavior is horribly annoying and it is definitely not appreciated. Many members are also often embarrassed by this and I can see their point. It's things like this that can really suck the fun out of a hobby like this for many people. No one wants to come here, post photos of their plants while having to dread the probable intrusion of a petty tyrant. These matters are probably best discussed via pm or in the specific discussion thread BEFORE any corrections are made.

In my case, Joseph edited several posts in one of my threads with old, outdated names that he pulled from a single and seldom updated source which he seems to think is the be all, end all of carnivorous plant nomenclature, which it surely is not. He just assumed he was correct and plowed his incorrect "corrections" into my post and the replies of others. I went back and fixed what he did to my posts but his incorrect changes are still in other members contributions. For someone who often preaches about the confusion of improper nomenclature, he sure did a good job of confusing things with incorrect information in that thread.

While the CP Database he uses for his information is indeed helpful it is by no means the pinnacle of CP nomenclature. The science of taxonomy moves faster than that site does. Changes to many genera are being made almost daily and there is no way that the 1 person who updates that site can keep up with them on his own. To assume that if something is not on the CP Database, then it must be incorrect is just ignorant.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
I consider the corrections done in red to grab attention as showing me, I wasn't asking for a private message. When I see that, I see what was fixed, and why, and I know for next time. I don't consider this any type of disrespect as "mommy doing it for me" or saying I'm not smart enough to do it myself at all.
Andrew

Perhaps you don't, but I most certainly do. It comes off as passive-aggressive pedantry.
 
  • #15
Cthulhu138, I've not followed any of these threads, could you please link me to it?
 
  • #16
His incorrect adjustments start on page 4. I've already gone back through and re-corrected his mistakes in my posts. The incorrect edit he made in BaseDrifter's post on page 5 is still there, it should read "D.basifolia" as it did originally. There is also still one of his red edits in dionae's post on the top of page 6.

http://www.terraforums.com/forums/showthread.php/137939-Tuberous-Drosera
 
  • #17
I've had mods correct my post before and honestly I love it. Saves me the step to do it myself. Although, I wouldn't know if the corrections are wrong to begin with lOL
 
Last edited:
  • #18
It seems to me that there is a general consensus of people who would like to be contacted via PM about nomenclature before heavy edits to posts are made by the mods, and that certain rampant editing through threads has irritated some members. That being said, I greatly appreciate when nomenclature (mine included) is properly corrected. Correct edits are extremely helpful to me and I'm sure to others on this forum. Claiming that an correct edit done for nomenclature reasons on someone's post out in public is offensive or belittling sounds very ridiculous to me. If the name was originally posted incorrectly by the original poster and edited correctly by an admin, whatever embarrassment or offense taken was deserved, in my opinion (taking one's lumps). Or maybe we can all just learn to take ourselves a little less seriously, :-P-:
 
Last edited:
  • #19
I have mixed feelings on this subject. I think that accuracy in naming is important and respect the desire for the names to be written as correctly as possible. However, I do think there are a couple of issues with the current way it has been going.

As others have mentioned sometimes what one person thinks is correct may not actually be so. In some cases an error may be very clear, other times it may be disputed or in a grey territory. There are so many species of carnivorous plants and the names seem to be in such a constant state of flux that I don't see how it is possible for anyone to be truly 100% accurate in their naming, even when working off of collected databases (which can be prone to their own errors.)

I have read through all of Joseph's posts on naming conventions and have worked to improve both my accuracy and consistency in naming conventions. I learned a lot from his posts and I was glad to expand my knowledge on the subject. For example when to use single apostrophes (S. 'Judith Hindle') and when to use quotation marks (S. leucophylla "burgundy").

That said, I don't particularly like my thread being plastered with red text that something like S. x readei or S. x moorei are not accepted names. I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that using S. x moorei to denote a Sarracenia cross composed of S. leucophylla and S. flava is both in common use and understood. Typing out S. x moorei is a whole lot easier than writing out the full name each time, even if it is not 100% scientifically accurate. The S. "x" names make it a whole lot easier and quicker to easily convey the general make up of the plant. Doing a simple search for S. x moorei, S. x excellens, S. x catesbaei, etc, yields plenty of results on what the cross is and pictures of those crosses.

Just to go back to my S. x readei, it came to me listed as S. x readii when I bought it from the SFSU greenhouse. That's all I know about the plant. I don't know if it was S. leucophylla crossed with S. rubra, or S. rubra crossed with S. leucophylla (or whether that actually matters, seems like listing the order of the parents is another issue still being debated.)

To sum up, I don't think every post and every instance of a naming "error" should be edited or changed throughout a thread. A simple note in the thread about the nomenclature would serve to both educate the poster as well as alert others reading the thread about the issue. If the poster wants to go back and edit their posts with the correct name they still have the ability to. People will learn the names better when (or if) they have to go back and make the changes themselves rather than it being done for them.

ps3isawesome, I've seen you make a number of errors in your posts (mostly on Sarracenia boards or /r/savagegarden where I spend the most time.) For example, writing D. Capensis instead of D. capensis. I'd recommend you peruse through Joseph's threads on naming convention and see what you pick up. There's a lot of valuable information there.

Cthulhu, if you would like me to edit my post in your thread for consistency let me know.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
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. Why not send a PM, as others have suggested? Or, if you are concerned that member so-and-so will not see the PM, why not add a post to the thread? Something along the lines of "I think XYZ is actually PQR, here is the relevant link" or "'Judith Hindle' is a cultivar name, so we put single quotes around it. Here are a few more examples." The former fosters discussion by allowing other members to weigh in on what is or isn't an accepted name (I'm thinking here of the recent Heliamphora thread where nomenclature was disputed). The latter shows beginners how to do things without coming across as an angry schoolmarm.

The edits that offend me the most are those that come across as pure pedantry. In numerous threads, Joseph corrects "Sarrs" to "Sarracenia" or "Nep" to "Nepenthes." Or, in a thread where context establishes the genus under discussion, he corrects "ventricosa" to "N. ventricosa" (with the inevitable comment that botanical names are binomial). Most of us know full well that a "Nep" is indeed a "Nepenthes," in the same way that we know a "mod" is a "moderator." I've said all of this before on another thread so I'm not going to get into it again, but let me add here that it is common practice in any language to use abbreviations for frequently used terms and especially as a kind of diminutive. Orchid folks regularly call their plants "chids" on forums. Sure, it's cutesy but no worse than calling your brother Thomas Tom or your refrigerator a fridge. I understand that some may bristle at such shortcuts, but at the end of the day this forum is a place for growers of all stripes to share information in an informal way. Sure, professional taxonomists and botanists may have to suffer the noob (<-- see what I did there), but professional educators in the humanities like myself must also suffer incomplete sentences, apostrophes in all the wrong place's (ha!), colloquialisms, and teh internet speech in general. Contextually, no one should have any trouble figuring out that "ventricosa" refers to "Nepenthes ventricosa" on a *carnivorous plant* forum. It is statistically unlikely that someone here typing "ventricosa" or event "vent" (*clutches pearls*) is referring to Hosta ventricosa or Erica ventricosa. Ultimately, for me it comes down to place. I feel that Joseph's taxonomic rigor might be better applied (and certainly more appreciated) at a scientific journal.
 
Back
Top