www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

I wanted to search the Sites forum to see if there had been any discussions about the Small Blue. Typing Small Blue into the search box (or even "Small Blue" in quotes to make it a compound string) just gets me:

"The following words in your search query were ignored because they are too common words: blue small"

Is there any way around this? Or can I only look for info about more interestingly-named butterflies?

Unfortunately, that's a limitation of the forum. Will add it to the list of enhancements!

Cheers,

- Pete

There are lots of rather similar threads and it can be difficult to check before posting. I recently started a new thread on Collard Hill before seeing an old one, buried quite deep down.

Is there any way of providing an alphabetical list of sub-forums under 'Species' for the mainstream British species and, similarly,an alphabetical list of common sites under 'Sites'? 'Sightings' could similarly be grouped by Month/Year.

It might help in channeling information into a smaller number of common threads.

Mike

MikeOxon wrote:There are lots of rather similar threads and it can be difficult to check before posting. I recently started a new thread on Collard Hill before seeing an old one, buried quite deep down.

Is there any way of providing an alphabetical list of sub-forums under 'Species' for the mainstream British species and, similarly,an alphabetical list of common sites under 'Sites'? 'Sightings' could similarly be grouped by Month/Year.

It might help in channeling information into a smaller number of common threads.

Mike

Hi Mike - I think the last two are almost there, although it requires members to go find the correct site thread, or month/year (which is, actually, working fairly well).

As for species, the intention was always to create species-specific threads in the "Species" forum, but this hasn't really taken off.

Will have a think since I realise that the information on the threads is often quite valuable and needs to be easily found for posterity!

Cheers,

- Pete

Pete Eeles wrote: As for species, the intention was always to create species-specific threads in the "Species" forum, but this hasn't really taken off.

In the species forum it would be helpful if there were a sub-section, or at least a thread which was sticky, for each species. Then all posts relating to a particular species could be posted in one place rather than there being myriad threads on the same thing.

Happy to do that. Just to be specific, what exactly would we expect to see in such threads?

I ask because, looking at the current "Species" forum, most threads have very few items of enduring interest (e.g. posts asking if people want to meet up on a certain date!). I would image that "Personal Observations" would be more-focused, but want to ensure I don't miss anything.

I think species-specific photos are covered by the species-specific albums, and good sites for species cover by the sites listings. Therefore, observations struck me as the one item that I'd like to revisit.

Thoughts?

Cheers,

- Pete

Having got a ball rolling on the topic of forum structure, I should like to pursue it a little further. The structure of the forum threads is, of course, a taxonomy issue, and anyone who has dabbled with biological nomenclature knows what a minefield that subject conceals!

I shall start by noting that I am a recently arrived member of this forum and don't wish to appear as a rash upstart. However, while I am very impressed by the general quality of discussion and the enormous amount of valuable information contained in this site, I have found the structure of the many sub-fora to be very confusing. So, I offer these thoughts, but will fully understand longer-established members who mutter "here we go again!"

I observe the greatest confusion to lie between the categories "Photography", "Sites", "Sightings", "Species". There are loads of cross-postings, double/multiple postings, and repeated topics with very similar thread titles. I could list examples but I'm sure we can all find them readily enough.

The art of taxonomy is to identify divisions that really matter and not to be distracted by incidental features. So, I suggest that, at the top level, there is a major division between threads that are seeking help and threads that are imparting information. This could be the top level of my suggested taxonomy.

Working down from this top level:

'Help seeking' threads can be divided into "how?", "what?", "when?", "where?" questions.

In our context, these could be:

"how do I improve my photos?" - a photography 'help' section

"what is this species?" - identification requests (these will often need illustrations)

"when is species XXX on the wing?" - it's easy to get the timing wrong, as species are on the wing earlier than reference books suggest

"where can I go to look for species xxx?"


Replies should, of course, continue in the same threads, but new information and spin-offs should fall into the next major taxonomic division:

'Imparting information' threads could encompass:

First sightings - what species have been seen on the wing and where (this could build up a useful phenology database)

Sites - what species I saw at site xxx on date yyy

Species behaviour - what interesting aspect of behaviour I saw in species xxx at site yyy on date zzz

Photographs/ illustrations - we should strongly encourage all photos to go to galleries rather than forum posts.

I may appear to have been rather imago-centric but the questions and information should include all life cycle stages. I think an important aim of the site should be to encourage interest in following all stages of butterfly development.

I also feel that photographs should, as much as possible, be placed in the galleries rather than long strings of photos within forum posts. This would make finding images much easier and allows the fora to concentrate on discussion.

Of course, some questions may require supporting photos but, on the whole, forum information should be in the form of text.

Finally, I would not want to inhibit the diversity and eclectic nature of many postings. These give this site its essential character as a forum of interested and thoughtful participants.

Mike

Thanks Mike.

"I observe the greatest confusion to lie between the categories "Photography", "Sites", "Sightings", "Species". There are loads of cross-postings, double/multiple postings, and repeated topics with very similar thread titles. I could list examples but I'm sure we can all find them readily enough."

But what is the confusion exactly? I think these examples are quite distinct and simply provide a "starting point" for a thread. A better example would be "Overseas" with, say, "Identification". If anything, the "Overseas" category should go since it applies to every other forum! And, of course, threads can quickly go off-topic.

"I suggest that, at the top level, there is a major division between threads that are seeking help and threads that are imparting information."

But surely any of your examples could be used as both a request for help and imparting information. For example, a response within "How do I improve my photos?" would impart information. And a thread within "First sightings" could be seeking help such as "when do members think the first Purple Emperor will be flying this year?".

"Photographs/ illustrations - we should strongly encourage all photos to go to galleries rather than forum posts."

"I also feel that photographs should, as much as possible, be placed in the galleries rather than long strings of photos within forum posts. This would make finding images much easier and allows the fora to concentrate on discussion."

"Of course, some questions may require supporting photos but, on the whole, forum information should be in the form of text."

I strongly disagree with all 3 of these comments. One of the reasons the forums are attractive is EXACTLY because they can contain images!

Cheers,

- Pete

I knew I was sticking my head above the parapet! I'll hold back and see if anyone else has any thoughts.

Just to explain what I meant about confusion: do I post a photograph of a sighting of a species at a site under photos, sightings, species, or sites? I'm possibly being far too analytical and, as long as you are happy with things as they are, I don't want to sound discontented - I'm not! - it's a great site overall and clarity is bound to be difficult over such wide-ranging subjects.

Mike

If there are aspects of the site that obstruct its purpose, or confuse casual visitors, then it is good to have attention drawn to them - and it is most likely to be a relative newcomer like yourself, Mike, who notices them.

For myself, the detailed 'taxonomy' of the fora is not an issue because I never explore them systematically, or look for information via the structure. I always enter via 'new posts' (or, if I have missed some past new posts, via 'active topics') and the only function of the forum heading is to qualify the subject line of the post. So, if I see a butterfly's name under the topic 'identification' I will go in and have a look, in case I can help, but if I see the same butterfly as the subject in a 'sites' post I won't bother, as I don't know about UK sites.

As for pictures, I enjoy seeing them embedded in pages. Most posts by most people are about sharing experiences, and the pictures are a very good way of doing this. If someone is really excited because they saw their first purple emperor, I'm soft enough to want to share their excitement by seeing a picture of what they saw.

If pictures go further, and illustrate something interesting in itself, I agree, they should be put into the species-specific galleries. But I enjoy seeing them in their original posts too.

In short, I the present structure meets all the needs of the way I use the site. If others use it (or want to use it) differently, they might prefer a more rigorous, formal structure. If that were introduced, it wouldn't upset me either, as I probably wouldn't really notice the difference.

Guy

padfield wrote: For myself, the detailed 'taxonomy' of the fora is not an issue because I never explore them systematically

Many thanks, Guy, for your measured and thoughtful response. From the silence elsewhere, I assume most are content with things as they are.

When I first visited the forums, I was stunned by the quantity and quality of informtion. I browsed all over the place and chanced on some interesting info in a thread called "Adonis aberrants". It sent me looking at some old photos of my own but, when I went back to check further. the thread seemed completely different! I eventually realised I was now in "Adonis Blue aberrations". I saw several other overlaps, which prompted my suggestion for a more systematic approach.

I think I need to relax, adopt your method, and treat the forums as an ever changing window onto delightful scenes! I had perhaps forgotten that other parts of this website contain well-ordered and comprehensive information to answer my questions.

incidentally, it took me some time to realise that I could get back from the forums to the main site by clicking on the headline - I hope everyone else has found this!

Mike