I, too, use it to research roses I'm thinking of trying. The photos and comments are so helpful.

I appreciate those who post pictures not only of the flowers, but also the canes, thorns, foliage, stipules, buds, etc.

The sorts of pictures that you see in catalogs are often too perfect. They show the flower at its best, or how it looks for about 5 minutes in the spring or fall. At HelpMeFind you get a more realistic idea of what a rose might look like in different climates, different times of the year. Many times I've been wowed by a catalog type photo, then go over to HelpMeFind to see what the rose REALLY looks like.

One of the features that I don't like is how other members can rate the photos you posted at HMF. I post my photos there just to share with other people around the world. I never thought they will get rated.

Having a 'Good' rating instead of an 'Excellent' rating is like having a 'B' at school instead of an 'A'. I remember whenever my friends got an A and I got a B for an assignment I would cringe and feel jealous.

No doubt the 'Colour accuracy' category is important - but is it necessary to have an 'Aesthetic quality' and the 'Representation of Plant' rating? Not many people have a DSLR camera or a garden like Pam's or Hoovb's.

I did not feel that rating of my photos somewhat is cringy, but I remember once a discussion in some other forum about handing out ratings to the friend pix, something along the lines "I uploaded photos, now you all go and rate them". I suppose it is important for some people, as it always is with ratings, to more rate a friend, rather than actual photo.

It is not a big deal, but that rating note in the other forum made me not to look at the ratings anymore as any indication of accuracy, as the human factor is too strong, especially when you can see who is an author of each photo.

Susanâ¦â¦â¦There is a very long list of enhancements for HMF and I will forward your suggestion to be added to the list.

Elemire â¦â¦ I will forward your comments about the PM. Thank you for mentioning the BUY FROM tab. We have worked to make the upload and maintenance of nursery inventories quite easy for the nurseries to maintain on their own. If you have a favorite nursery that does not list their inventory on HMF, please let them know that they are free to list their inventory on the site. As HMF becomes more and more international, having the nurseries maintain their inventory on the site keeps the information more current.

Bellegalica â¦.. I, too, like looking up photos of roses I would like to purchase on HMF rather than making a purchasing decision base upon the rose porn found in most catalogs. Also, by checking the gardens listed as growing the rose, I can get a sense of how it will do in my climate.

Jimmy â¦. You donâÂÂt need to have a quality camera to take photos that can be rated on âÂÂAesthetic qualityâ â¦ this refers to the composition of the photo. The same can be said for âÂÂRepresentation of Plantâ â¦. This is for photos of the whole plant and gives the other site users a sense of the plant habit in the photographerâÂÂs location.

To all who have supported the site â¦. Thank you. The founder of HMF carried the cost of keeping HMF on the net personally for more than 10 years, waiting until he felt it was worth the cost of charging for the use of the more sophisticated/programming intense features on the site. Your support and participation helps us continue to make the site even better.

Smiles,
Lyn

One way I really enjoy HMF is reading the rose lists of others in my area. I've used the glossary of terms numerous times and many of the ezine articles. I constantly refer to the rose listings, the pictures and lineages. I look to see who sells the roses and read lists of gardens in my area. I check out the pictures and plants and comments of those gardeners I particularly admire. I appreciate the cooperation and support that HMF is giving to increase the visibility and information about roses and breeders world wide.

As much as anything else, I enjoy the brilliance of the entire concept and being allowed to be a very small part of supporting it with my few paltry $ invested and my few pictures and comments. It is cooperation and ingenuity at its finest, I think.

What people can do when they get along and cooperate towards a goal is admirable.

I list my roses on HMF, even though I list them on my own website and also on my computer, I enjoy having them listed on HMF so that I can participate with other rose fans.

I MOSTLY use HMF to search for roses I don't know about. I enjoy comparing the description of the roses' habit, etc, to the nursery's description, trying to get a more full picture in my head of what the rose might be like. I really enjoy reading the user comments about roses there, too. There have been a few instances where I was considering buying a rose, but someone in a similar zone to me listed a pretty big negative about it, so I was saved the trouble (probably.) :) I like to search on GW, here, too, to see what people say about particular roses.

And of course, HMF is really great for photos of roses. There isn't any other place where you can get such a clear idea of what a rose looks like, because in most cases, on HMF there are a lot of photos for each rose. Only a few very rare roses don't have pictures, or only have one or two pictures (and anyone who owns those, really should add photos of them!)

I also find the BUY FROM tab very useful, most of the time, it's up to date.

and in general, I like that, basically, the site is a vast resource created by it's users.

HelpMeFind is probably the single most valuable tool I use with regard to my roses. At first it was just a case of looking at pictures (and Lyn, if you're still reading, I do still REALLY miss the ability to just click on NEXT and scan through all the pictures!) I use it, along with vendor sites, GardenWeb, Google, etc., when selecting a rose to purchase. I always appreciate it when people have uploaded their rose lists, because I check the "Gardens" tab to see if it's grown successfully in my area. If a rose isn't grown in my area, I can look at the individual gardens listed to see if they grow other roses that grow well for me. Member comments are always helpful.

Having the lineage/breeding information has become extremely useful--I've found that some breeders work out better for me than others. For example, I've found that David Austin roses IN GENERAL do not perform well for me--and neither do their progeny. So I check lineage before I use my limited space on a rose that may not be the best performer in my garden. On the other hand, Harkness roses tend to grow very well--so I can search and see if there are any I must try from them.

Also a great site when doing a little amateur rose breeding. If I'm considering Rose "A" and Rose "B", I can check to see if either has offspring, and what they look like and take that into consideration before a purchase. I love being able to click back through the family tree and see who's there.

The "Buy From" tab is invaluable (although depressing when I find that a fabulous rose isn't available!)

I don't use the messaging tool, so no opinion on that.

Having a resource to look at owner's photos rather than marketing photos is fantastic. My roses tend to look much more like the photos taken by "real people" than those taken by vendors and marketers. As far as the comments on photos go--I'd love to see the "Aesthetic" vote go away. I've noticed someone going through and rating photos only on their "aesthetic" value, and photos end up with poor ratings based on someone's personal taste. Clean, helpful photos get trashed just because someone doesn't like single blossoms, red roses, or maybe because it's Monday. Discouraging to those who post photos, and not useful information for those using the site. A user knows whether they like a photo or not; no reason to have a popularity contest IMO.

I probably use the site daily, so I have no problem paying for a membership at the reasonable rates charged.

I dislike that "aesthetic value" rating, also. As I just mentioned on the other post, I generally remove my photos from HMF if they get less than excellent ratings. I still have over 1400 photos posted -- just none that people disliked for one reason or another.

I don't need to see someone trashing my efforts "just because it's Monday."

lucretia1 ....

Yes, I am still reading and am willing to forward comments to our webmaster.

Re: Scanning through photos of a rose using the NEXT and BACK feature is something I miss, too, but the change was made as a cost control measure. This function increases the server charges significantly.

Re: Photo rating, both you and Kstrong make good points. I'll pass the informtion along.

Smiles,
Lyn

I also agree about the ratings. Color accuracy maybe has some value (although it differs in different gardens, so what is accurate for one, won't be for the other, also some roses are really different in different season), but aesthetic value got me wonder "wtf?" and just press pretty much random grade. Representation of the plant also is somewhat similar issue, as when I think of it, all the macro shots I see as average representation, as they do not show the plant per se, just blooms.

elemire,

the color accuracy vote is another one that can be misleading, because, as you say, the color will differ with season and location. It really got my goat when I posted a picture of Buff Beauty that was EXACTLY the color the rose was in my garden at that time, and somebody voted a low score on color accuracy (I've seen several low scores for color accuracy for that particular rose, and in every case the photos seem pretty representative of what's in my garden.) I've gotten to where I pretty much ignore the photo scores as useless. I can make my own assessment of color IF enough people post photos--so post, folks, post!

Lyn, sorry to hear that it's a cost thing on the "next" feature. :( Thanks for passing on the comments, tho!

Susan- I'll ignore all the commentary, and just answer your original question. As curator of the Heritage Rose Garden, I use it constantly, and have a paid membership. I have a link to the rose search in my rose database, so when I go through the roses we don't have in the garden, I can see whether anyone sells them, or if not, is there a garden where I might be able to get cuttings. I then add this information to the database.

We have hundreds of found roses, and sometimes a potential match is suggested. I can compare my pictures from the garden with those on HMF. It also helps when a rose has been mislabeled.

Sometimes a found rose bears a resemblance to some known rose, and I use the lineage tab to look for close relatives. I can also use the advanced search to look for other roses by the same hybridizer of the known rose.

Occasionally I notice that we have a rare rose in the garden, and there are no photos of it, so I take one and post it. I would love a list of all the roses we have where there is no other listed in the US. I usually only find out how rare a rose is when someone asks me for cuttings of it, or I'm looking it up for some other reason.

I certainly hope everyone who reads this forum pays for HMF- even if you don't need the Premium features, your support helps keep it available for those researchers and public gardens who need it.

Jill

I had not noticed the ratings until reading this. The aesthetic rating gives an anonymous person an opportunity to mark down a rose because it may not be what he/she expects. If your idea of beauty is a rose that has certain qualitites, and a heritage rose does not have those qualities, you have an opportunity to rate it low.

I am trying to collect certain roses for all kinds of reasons, and I see qualities that the casual observer may not see. I see beauty in roses that have few or many petals. I would like to see an explanation given for the rating. My Vincent Godsif received a fair rating, but the bush is beautiful. I am intrigued with the Bermuda roses, and have collected them to enjoy some of their unique history. I wonder what value there is to allowing members to give an "aesthetic" rating.

Perhaps the "fair" rating is because it is not as full as an Austin, but it isn't an Austin.

Sammy

Sammy, don't ever exhibit in rose shows! If you think receiving a fair rating on a perfect specimen of an old rose is bad, wait until you have a perfect specimen exhibited and a judge, who favors the high centered HT, marks it down, even though he/she knows little to nothing about OGRs.

I commented before thinking.

Many of us belong to this forum so that we can share our love for antique roses with others.

If we take advantage of being able to explain our rose in the comment section as we submit our rose to HMF, we will automatically neutralize the word "aesthetic". We will encourage a better informed reply than just a rating.

Roseseek, you are correct, except that I have been there, done that.

Sammy

I am appreciating all of this input. Honestly I never even knew until this year that HMF was available to us for membership; it just continually popped up when I used my friend Google to find a rose. Then this year I started adding roses again to my garden (after a few years of playing catch up with what I already had), and so I used it to find other photos of anything that caught my eye on a nursery's site. And only a bit after that did I really get it that having a membership there was a two-way street and that I was gonna get a lot more than I was gonna have to give. I'm a beginner in the world of roses, and so most of the bennies available to me as a premium member aren't really necessary to me personally, but....I'm also not fond of being beholden, so I really like doing my share as a paying member, and I'm also hoping that over time I will grow into using a lot more of what it offers than I am using so far. Wow...sorry to ramble on....

I post photos on HMF because I think those photos will be USEFUL to someone, not because they are "beautiful". I've been posting photos of the plant with spent blooms, too. And whole bush shots that might not be that pretty. But it shows a potential buyer what the plant actually looks like.

And seriously, I don't care what some anonymous person rates my rose photo. :) (Though, I agree that sort of "grading" is kinda ick. It's not really useful on this sort of site, imho.)

aimeekitty .......

Actually, you are very useful to HMF. The photos of roses that don't do well in your climate are just as important as those that do well... both provide information.

I don't groom my plants before taking a photo because, I, too want other site users to see what the rose looks like in my garden.

I haven't put up many photos simply because I am a newbie at using a digital camera. I don't even know what I did right when I got a good shot.

I still haven't figured out how to get a shot of the full plant without it looking over-exposed.

Many of the early photos shown on my PHOTO tab were taken by Paul Barden. He sent me a disk and I uploaded the photos, but if you open the photo, you will see that Paul has been given credit for the photo.

Our webmaster is working on another enhancement to the site and wants to stay focused on that project and has promised to get back to me about the comments shared in this thread.

As I read this thread, I am wondering how many of you use the various SEARCH functions on the site. Please let me know because I'd like to pass that information along, too.

Smiles,
Lyn

Lyn,

I use the advanced search frequently. In order of usage, it's probably name, origin, lineage, class, color, introduction. I don't often use bloom, habit, growing, favorites, or Plant has.... I have used bloom & habit, almost never growing, favorites, or Plant has. The reason I don't use "growing" more is that it's only a single selection on Disease--for example, I'd like to be able to select both "disease resistant" and "very disease resistant"--since I can't select both, I just use the default any/all. It would be nice if the "disease" section was checkboxes like the rest of the form.

I do use the "Preference" selection---different settings at different times.

A really great tool!

I use the advanced search almost daily, and I would say I frequently use all of the attributes there. The "limit search to favorites" is particularly useful to me. I can limit my search to a favorite nursery that I happen to be placing an order to or a garden with whose owner I am exchanging cuttings and put in various attributes that currently have my fancy (i.e. singles, or stripes, or whatever and see what that nursery or garden has) and then I can fill out an order or potential cuttings trade list with things I know will probably be available. It's especially useful for nurseries that like to ship in groups of a certain number of plants -- then you can add to your order until you reach the magic number.

One "enhancement" I would like to see with respect to advanced search . . . . if it would allow you to press the control key and let you pick more than one of the selections in "blooms" type. As it is now, one has to run a separate search for "single," and for example, "single to semi-double." I'd like to be able to put the check mark in both boxes in one search, which you can do in other web engine searches by pressing the control key at the same time as the second selection. Same for fragrance and some other attributes where "advanced search" only lets you pick one of the possible choices at a time.

But first, get rid of that inane ratings nonsense. My druthers would be to take out all of those ratings options, but the most annoying one is the one that gets used the most -- aesthetic value. Everyone fancies him or herself to be a proper judge of that.

Thanks
Kathy

I use advanced search rarely, mostly because I usually first find a plant in the listing of the local vendors, then look it up, not wise versa. I use search by class, sometimes add color to it and a few other elements to narrow things down, but ultimately basic search is pretty much enough for me, since I more or less know which plants I might want to add to my not so big garden.

I tried to use search by the breeders also, but there I got rather specific issue, as I was mostly looking for the plants bred in former soviet block. There isn't that much information about it in general, also I had an impression that part of the listing falls under separate countries, when actually they were a part of different country at some point. For example Latvian breeders I think were not searchable that way (although technically they were part of USSR when some of rugosas were bred).

just joined. I'm off to have a snout about.

Hear hear on getting rid of the "aesthetic" ratings. For a while there was somebody grading all newly posted photos only on aesthetic value--it was obvious they were going through and using their personal thoughts on what was "pretty" to make ratings. A photographer would have photos of 2 different roses--same composition, same photo quality, and one would be rated highly and one poorly. Certainly allowed via the HMF voting criteria, but subjective and not very helpful. When they did it to my photos, I just (insert your favorite obscene gesture here) and ignored it. What I really didn't like was when someone posted their first picture and this "aesthete" trashed them. Imagine someone excitedly posting their first picture, only to be told it wasn't good enough. Chances are they won't share a photo again when they tried to participate and got a "POOR" rating.

Something that would indicate to HMF that a picture is too dark/out of focus/etc so that it can be removed would be useful. A subjective beauty contest just leads to hurt feelings and isn't helpful. If someone wants to indicate a picture is one of their favorites, they already have the ability to do that.

I don't use the Premium features often, just joined to help HMF out. $24/year isn't much to help sustain such an invaluable resource. Can you imagine what it would be like without it?

The ratings system needs to go. I can't see anything it accomplishes except hard feelings.

There isn't a single rosarian here who doesn't know what HMF is, and we all use it....often. For that reason alone, whether we use any of the paid features or not, HMF is well worth supporting financially to ensure that the Web's most valuable rose research tool will be here for many years to come. If you can find that $24 somewhere in your budget, please support HMF.

What do I use it for? 80% of the time I use it to research lineage/offspring of an individual rose or line of breeding. It has been invaluable to me in planning my breeding for years now. Many of the decisions I make annually would not have been possible without HMF.

Regarding the controversial "photo ratings" feature: I'm guessing that HMF will be removing that feature, since it has become obvious to everyone involved that the tool can easily be abused and does little to encourage uploading of photos. The aesthetic value of a photo is irrelevant as long as the photo is a meaningful depiction of the plant for identification purposes and to help in selection an appropriate rose for the situation.

Paul

Here is a link that might be useful: First time HMF paid members get it for $18 right now!

How do I find members' roses from the Antique Rose Forum on HMF?

I don't know anyone's name, and if I try to find your roses using the names here, I cannot find you.

Is there a secret way to find members that I am not aware of?

Sammy

No Sammy, no secret. Some of us use the same screen name for everything, as I do. Others have different ones for different sites. I guess the only way is going to be for you to start with what you've done, then ask the ones you want to look at their pictures what their screen names are. Hopefully, some will read this and tell you who they are there. Kim

To All .. I am still forwarding your feedback to the HMF webmaster. I was reluctant to start a thread about HelpMeFind myself because I am so closely associated with the site, but I am loving this opportunity to get feedback.

lucretia1 .. thank you for pointing out the inconvenience of some of the search features that use radio buttons vs check boxes. If you scroll down further in the GROWING section you will find a section that does use check boxes that allows you to search for things like heat tolerance or climate preferences. Most of the information that ends up on the rose page that can be found in these searches comes from the comments site users have made about how the rose performs in their gardens. So the comments about the roses you grow or have decided to shovel prune ARE important.

kstrong .. your suggestion about being able to search for multiple bloom forms is also a radio button vs check box issue. Thanks for pointing that specific example out and the suggestion for handling it.

elemire .. historical countries .. that's a good one. In fact another site user brought that to our attention recently. It's part of the bigger picture of the site becoming more and more international. The information on the site is just the tip of the iceberg. I am not certain how this will be addressed, but it makes sense that going forward it's something we will be looking at.

To all who have endorsed supporting HMF ... THANK YOU. Since HMF is not supported by advertising, the only way the site can continue to grow and improve is with your support and participation.

Do any of you use the SEARCH feature on the Q & A or the TEXT search on the Ezine ?

Smiles,
Lyn

So, this morning I listed all of the recently arrived (from EuroDesert, Burlington, Chamblees and RVR) and coming in March (from Vintage) into my Watch List. These are all roses I will need to make room for in my mess of a yard/garden.

Another box of roses is arriving today (Thanks to a benefactor who may or may not want to be publicly named), and they will be added as soon as I have the pleasure of opening the box and drooling.

HMF is my new favorite gardening tool.

Among many other things, I'm grateful for this thread since it reminded me last night to join again. So many thing claim our attention and sometimes you have to be hit over the head before finding the time and energy to actually DO something. Now it was just a matter of following tprospero's link and I was done in 30 seconds!

Ingrid

Since so many of you have been using HMF for a long time, and I see that you have HAVES and WANTS in the Cutting section, maybe you would explain the protocol of how this works. I have lots of roses that I would be more than happy to share cuttings with, but....I'd need to know I was doing it right and that when I say I have something I have it in a form that is what is expected.

'Splain it to me puleeze.

Hi landperson, simply put, if you post you have it, that means you grow the rose and it is mature enough for you to be able to provide cuttings to someone who has posted they want it. In warmer months, that means soft wood cuttings which are basically flowering stems where the blooms have recently faded and shattered. Hardwood cuttings are the ones used in colder months and they can be anything from flowering stems which shattered weeks or longer ago, to harder, older wood further on down the plant.

If you have what someone has posted they'd like, feel free to contact them to offer cuttings. Protocol suggests the recipient at least reimburse you for postage, or you can simply use a Flat Rate Priority Mail package where you know how much the postage is prior to sending it and ask for the postage up front. Work it out between the two parties whatever is comfortable between you. Kim

Lyn,
I use the search function on the e-zine and q&a. I look for articles by authors I enjoy reading as well as topics I'm curious about. There are many good contributors increasing my knowledge of roses and rose history.

I've usually ignored the favorites on the photo and member categories. I look for what's useful to me. I don't know what the parameters of what "favorites" consist of so it doesn't matter. I guess that means I don't understand it and don't care enough to find out, but it may mean something to someone else so am tolerant of the whole thing.

thanks and smiles back, Gean

To All ...

I have finally heard back from our webmaster about your feedback. You will be pleased to know that the radio button vs check box issue has already been changed and you can have multiple critea in your searches. To quote:

"Switching to multiple choices is an easy fix - done. But... there are limits to how many total selections people can make as the more choices, the higher the work load on the server."

As for the photo ratings, here's his response:

"Yes, I'll put my thoughts together about ratings when I get a chance but I'm not adverse to making some changes for photo ratings."

To Gean:

Thanks for letting me know that someone is using the Q & A SEARCH. My rainy day project for this year is to update the rose pages based upon the comments so that they will show up on the ADVANCED SEARCHES.

To All, again:

A personal note about the rose COMMENTS, as I have gone through the archives for the OGRs, I have noticed that there are few comments about plant habits, plant perferences or characteristics. Most of the comments seem to be about identification and what clone is sold, for example, in Europe vs the United States. Site user input always makes HMF more useful, so if you could add your experiences with the roses you grow, I promise to keep up with adding the information to the rose pages.

Smiles,
Lyn

I am pleased with what you are doing, and pleased that to have followed this thread.

I have really learned a lot about HMF.
Sammy

Lyn and everyone, as I've learned more about it I so appreciate the many features of HMF. And since there were several comments about the need for full bush photos I've been going through my photos and adding full bush shots to HMF as I find them, such as Emmie Gray.

Also I agree that it's helpful to know what a rose REALLY looks like, especially when not at its best, so I've added a photo of one of those: Summer Snow. I was impressed enough with how well an abandoned bush was doing that I took cuttings so I could grow it myself.

Thanks for starting this thread and to all who have added to it.

Ooops ! I forgot to say my "Thank you's".

Thank you very much for participating in this thread and giving HMF feedback to serve the rose community better. In fact the webmaster credited you for the changes in the WHAT'S NEW tab on the site.

Thank you for being so honest and forthright in your comments. That means a lot.

And most of all, thank you for supporting HMF. The Premium-member features may not be exactly what you are looking for, but your support of the site allows HMF to continue and grow. That means a lot both to HMF and the rose community.

Smiles,
Lyn

And thank you to HMF as well. I see they already took my suggestion made above in this thread to allow combined searches covering more than one selection in a category (say, bloom types or fragrance types) by pressing the control key. Well done.

THANK YOU.

Kathy

I used HMF constantly when first learning about roses. I now use it most often when I am in the cemetery garden and want to tell somebody about a rose or check on info about it. I can call up the site on my phone.

My life as a rose lover would be much less rich without this site. I've gladly donated for years.

Lyn, if you are still reading this, something I miss terribly is the ability to page through the photos. You have to go back to the thumbnails and pick another one to look at. Especially on my phone, thumbnails are tiny, and it's very tedious to look at a series of photos. I used to look at ALL of the photos of a rose that I was interested in learning about. Now, I simply give up.
Anita

KStrong......

No need to press the control key for multiple selections. We've changed the radio buttons to check boxes. You can check more than one box, but don't forget the limitation mentioned above about increasing the workload on the server.

Anita ... as mentioned above, the change with the thumbnails was made to control cost because the founder carried the total cost of the site himself for many, many years. Also, technology has changed. There was a time when we could not access the site on our phones. As a personal thought ... until we have a larger premium member base, I doubt if we can change it back.

It's with the support of the rose community, and, yes, thank you for your continued support, that we can make these changes and some of the other enhancements on the list.

The webmaster did make many programming changes so the site is more user friendly to those still on dial-up, and I am one of those, it's still slower than broadband, but it is better than it used to be.

I'll keep reading the thread as long as I see people posting to it. Also, I plan to pass along the complements, too.

Smiles,
Lyn

I too miss the old way of navigating photos. I had no idea the change was a cost issue though.

I've started to use HMF to track my own collection.

I am a subscriber and I think membership is essential.

Lyn,

I would like to add a complement. I really appreciate how easy it is to put my photos from my albums on my computer onto HMF. It worked for me with my very first try. I still have not been able to successfully add a photo here on Gardenweb.

Kathy

Thank you, Kathy. Comments like this are an affirmation that the hard work that went into developing the site was worth the effort.

Just a note about photos: The other day a site guest put up a photo of a distressed plant that has survived without care for years. She thought of pulling the photo because it wasn't "pretty". That photo, and photos of blooms that age poorly, or whatever, are as much a part of HMF as the photos of beautiful blooms, they provide information. Those photos will actually help other site users make decisions about what rose they might want to buy for their gardens.

Smiles,
Lyn

This is a great thread! I am in my second year as an HMF member (Premium Member, but I have forgotten when I did that), but reading all these posts, I have realized that I have underused the site. I have used the site mostly for looking up roses that I am interested in, or have read about, or just in a general way for fun. I supported it mainly because I think it's a wonderful thing and wanted to help keep it going. NOW, from all this discussion, I realize that I could be doing all kinds of other things on it! Hooray!

That photo, and photos of blooms that age poorly, or whatever, are as much a part of HMF as the photos of beautiful blooms, they provide information.

There is also another issue with the photos like that, related to the ratings issue, that sometimes people go and mark them as incorrect photos of the plant (when you get message that "One or more site guests believe this photo is incorrectly labeled or inaccurate"). At first I thought it to be nice to know that some photo might be incorrect, now it slowly starts to get annoying, as some people mark pics of aged, different shade and whatever photos as incorrect, when in fact roses can vary a lot, be similar to the others and so on.

I mean, if the rose is completely different, it is clear without any rating that it can be mislabeled, but when it looks similar, it can very well be, that it looks just like that in gardens. If people pull out those pics because they get offended by downmarking theirs photos as wrong rose (which I think happened to at least a few I have checked), it works against being informative.

Well, I do like the "one or more site guests believe this photo is incorrectly labeled or inaccurate" as it tends to get a conversation going about what the particular thing is that makes the photo in question inaccurate. I have both left photos on there that got that mark (Julio Iglesias that was sold in Europe seems to be a different cultivar -- more red -- than the one in circulation in the US) and taken down photos where I concluded the person was probably right and my plant was incorrectly id'ed. And I have also used that function where I was pretty sure a photo posted by someone else was inaccurate. It happens often when there is more than one variety with the same name, and a newer site user puts their photos of a new plant in the section with, say, an earlier cultivar that used that same name. So that "inaccurate" option is useful to me. Although there is a new issue with the new ability to upload lots of photos at once. If someone chooses to do that with an inaccurately labeled cultivar, then the first several pages of pictures of that cultivar (i.e. the most recent photos) may be all that the site user ever sees, unless he has the patience to flip back through pages of pictures, and they may all be inaccurate, and very similar, pictures. People do need to do a better job of sorting out their own pictures when uploading, and not put up too many very similar shots. I try to just put up one at a time that shows the bloom, the stem, the plant, or whatever. I do not like it when one photographer puts up what looks like a whole series of one set of blooms.

But, what I still don't like is the other photo ratings -- aesthetic value -- and so on, where one just gives a number rating with no reason why. Those seem to have no redeeming value, as far as I can see, and can be offensive to the person who went to the trouble to put the photo on the site. I'll bet that none of the people who mark photos "good" or "fair" has any photos that are better than the ones they are marking down, and indeed, I would be surprised if those people make any photo contributions to the site at all. I want so badly to "talk back" to the one that is marking down some photos on aesthetic value that sometimes (ok, often) I just go in and put the higher ratings on the photos that have been marked down just to indicate I disagree with the rating they gave.

I wish somebody could give some insight as to just how the "beauty contest" rating feature is helpful.
I also recall last spring, someone had appointed themselves the rater of all incoming photos. I know it takes me some time and effort to adjust a photo to a loadable size and submit, only to receive some perfunctory rating, good or bad.

Another feature I would like to see is a "go to page" system on my HMF, so I could access my photos without having to page through all to get to the first one loaded.

And the ability to page through all of a particular variety is missed.

I used to mind the ratings too until my husband said, well, at least they are looking at your photos:-). I don't know if the ratings will go away or not, but one way to make them better (if they don't) is for more people to rate photos, especially those they genuinely believe are "excellent". Then at least it won't be just one person's opinion.

Masha

organic_tosca .. Thank you for your support of HMF. I realized today that I, too, have been under-utilizing some of the features on HMF. From now on, I am going to make notes in my JOURNAL about date, climate conditions and camera settings for my photos batches, so that I will have them readily available when I upload photos.

elemire .. You are right on about the photos providing information. Sometimes a rose looks different because it's grown in different climates with different culture, or because the plants were purchased from different crops in different years (yes, field grown roses are an agricultural crop and like any other crop can be impacted by the climate conditions during the year it was grown). Sometimes, the nursery has simply mislabeled a rose and someone thinks s/he's growing a given cultivar, when in actuality s/he has planted a different cultivar. Or a different clone is sold in one country vs another. So the same rose may look different.

kstrong .. It sounds like you are using the "inaccurate" function as intended. As for your comments about photo ratings, I'll pass them along.

greybird .. I think your idea of a "go to" function is a great one to add to the enhancement list. It could take the form of a page number drop down list ... I am certain our webmaster will have more than one way to implement something like that. Thanks for the suggestion. Re: paging through the photos .. So many of our site guests are not Premium-members, yet. It's very possible when that ratio changes, we may be able to go back to the old method of paging through the photo pages on a rose.

mashamcl .. Your husband is correct .. I don't know how many thousands of hits per day the site gets ... I haven't asked, but I do know it may be tens-of-thousands ... but the ratings, in my opinion, are not as important as your own thoughts about your work.

To all ... thank you for continuing to share your thoughts. Please remember there is a whole lot MORE to HMF than the photo ratings.

Smiles,
Lyn

I wish somebody could give some insight as to just how the "beauty contest" rating feature is helpful.

I suppose, in theory, you could see the mark Excellent as something that represents the plant well. In theory you could probably sort the pictures by the rating, so you get the ones with best on top etc. In theory, you could even code it so, that only best pictures show in random pic when you click on plant description.

But that is in theory only, as it is highly subjective, plants can vary a lot and overall it is best covered by favorites votes probably.

Then again, as I used favorites as bookmarks rather than actual favorites, it again can be somewhat vague.