www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Hi folks,

Well, with winter almost upon us, things are starting to quieten down. With this lull, I'll get some time to enhance the UK Butterflies website, and would like your input. I figure all of the "regulars" look in the forum from time to time I'd specifically like to know a) What enhancements you'd like to see and b) Their priority. Items on my list (not prioritised) are:

1. Completing the species descriptions.

2. Providing guidelines on distinguishing between similar species (e.g. Pale Clouded Yellow from Clouded Yellow from Berger's Clouded Yellow etc.)

3. Tidying up the photos currently online. I want to get rid of "similar" shots (and I'm to blame for this!) and also include shots from those of you that have sent me a mass of photos on CD. I personally have all of my 2006 shots to consider!

4. Adding a facility for photos to be added automatically, either for species pages or galleries (although I'll need to think about how this would work!)

5. Cosmetics (basically making the website look nicer) and providing crisper representations of the various species where appropriate (see examples below - not to scale!)



6. Regular competitions - online, no prizes

7. More articles (trip reports, interviews etc.)

Thanks in advance for your input.

Cheers,

- Pete

Pete,

As a butterfly beginner I think the site is absolutely great and so far it has more than answered my needs. I suppose that the experts might want more from it. So for me the important things to do (and I hesitate to say as it must be a mamoth job) are:
1) Finish the descriptions,
2) Add any identification help that you can.

Now a question, I am trying to build my own, internal, website as a quick way of accessing my own butterfly photos (like an on-line photo album) and wondered how you managed to create those crisp butterfly images with a shadow on a white background. Is it a matter of laboriously removing all the surrounding image with something like Photoshop?

Best regards,

Robin

Robin Turner wrote:Is it a matter of laboriously removing all the surrounding image with something like Photoshop?

I'm afraid so, and it takes ages

Cheers,

- Pete

Regarding the species descriptions, I owe my first Silver-Washed and High Brown Fritillaries to the 'Distribution and Sites' section, and wonder if this could be enhanced further by highlighting sites that are known to be particularly good for a species, as opposed to those where details are sketchy or the population is sparse?
Also, I like the idea of more competitions, especially where photos are involved, because we all like to show off our piccies!

Thanks David. I like the sound of that. I think something like a 5-star system for a species at a given site would be great. I just need to figure out how to determine the 5-start sites for each species!

Cheers,

- Pete

I also would like more additions to the sites pages. Perhaps forum members could assist with their favourite spots with details of butterflies found there? Hazelbury Common near Box in Wiltshire comes to mind for me, for instance.

Hi Pete,

One way of doing it might be to give a 'best site' for a species - possibly overall, or possibly a best site per 100km square, since the sites section is broken down into 100km squares anyway.

A completely different idea would be to set up a page for the most common and butterfly-like of the day-flying moths, Cinnabar, the burnets, etc.

All great ideas. Keep 'em coming. I'll summarise all suggestions in a week or two and get folks to vote on their priority.

I like the "best site for a species" - overall, and within a 100k square. David Newland has given me permission to add the sites in his book, which would make a good starter set.

I also like the idea of getting visitors to add their own favourites and other species observed - even if they're not listed.

I'd also like to make this as automated as possible so that you folks don't have to wait for me before new items appear.

Cheers,

- Pete

Well, you don't get what you don't ask for.

So - David T - it's now possible to rate a site with respect to each species found there. I've completed Bentley Wood. See

http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/sites_ng ... pecies=All

If you want to rate a site, then please do so. A couple of restrictions are currently in place. The first is that the form you use will send an email to me and not update the database directly. I work with lots of human beings and know they're prone to making mistakes when you stick a PC in front of them Secondly, once the ratings are in, then that's it! I'll add a mechanism for people to request a change, but email will have to suffice for now. I've also decided that having different contributors providing conflicting ratings is not the way to go - although it seems to work for Amazon

All in all, this is a pretty significant change. Once I have sufficient data, it will be easy to ask "Where are the top 10 sites in the UK for a particular species?" and get a decent answer.

The ultimate would be a facility that allowed you to plan your whole year based on where you live, and the species you want to see - like the AA route finder

Anyway - let me know what y'all think about this latest enhancement. I've still yet to add the ability to add more complete site descriptions and photos, but we'll get there.

Cheers,

- Pete

Hi Pete,

Excellent feature!

One question though - if I know how common some, but not all, species are at a site - can I set the ratings for only some of the species? I'm thinking of where different species fly at different periods of the year.

Yes - another good idea! So ... I've updated the ratings to allow you to rate only those species you know about.

And correction to ratings can also now be submitted: if you rate a site that has already been rated, then the ratings (in the ratings form) will be "primed" with the current ratings. Hope that makes sense

Cheers,

- Pete