Renaming Fungi Pages

[CloudedYellow]

Stuart,

There are two links to fungi that seem to be broken.

I noticed yesterday that two entries in the Fungi A-Z where not being listed under a letter of the alphabet because of a blank space that had found it's way in front of the name. I edited them and although the entries are now under the correct letter in the A-Z, the names are incorrectly formatted.

But I cannot edit them now!

They are

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/ta...is-toothed-cup
http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/de...ium-crazed-cap

[cybershot]

These two inactive entries in the Fungi of Brtain A to Z section of the References are for the species:

Tarzetta cupularis - Toothed Cup
and
Dermoloma cuneifolium - Crazed Cap,

Richard correctly listed using the Latin and Common names in the title but which now contravenes the recognized WAB format whereby the common name predominates.

The sooner we revert to the the previous format of the Fungi A to Z where the Scientific (Latin ) name is definitive the happier the mycologists, both professional and hobbyist, will be.

I think it is ludicrous when 'googling' a species and the WAB A to Z listing, often high in popularity, doesn't even contain the Latin name in the title. It loses all credibility!

David

[cybershot]

Opinions sought on the question of dropping the Scientific (Latin) name from the title of the species' entries in the Fungi of Britain A to Z listings within the WAB Reference section.

Richard (CloudedYellow) has been working hard on maintaining the listings and recently fell foul of this latest development when editing a couple of entries. It raises the issue of whether it's a reasonable move of admin to eliminate the Latin name from the titles.

Please see my response to Richard (Post#2) in the relevant thread:

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/fo...tml#post302372

and let your views be known.

TIA

David

[StuartDH]

Just to quickly give some info on the reasons behind the change.

The old format of the webpage including the scientific name resulted in very few pages getting in google's top 50. The longer a URL, the more the keywords become diluted and so, all things being equal,

wildaboutbritain.co.uk/amethyst-deciver

or

wildaboutbritain.co.uk/laccaria amethystina

will always do better than

wildaboutbritain.co.uk/laccaria amethystina-amethyst-deciver

As a result, we're working on getting search rankings for the pages and needed to change the format of the urls/titles

Our analytics are showing that there are very few searches on Google for the diffiult to learn/hard to spell scientific names, but quite a few searches for the many common fungi names like the many that can be found on this page:

Identify Fungi | Wild About Britain

The new page titles now match the rest of the reference section for mammals, birds etc with just the common name (or just the scientific name, if there is no common name) and everything else has stayed the same

The old urls should automatially redirect to the new ones so

wildaboutbritain.co.uk/amanita-muscaria-fly-agaric

will redirect to

wildaboutbritain.co.uk/fly-agaric

Stu

[cybershot]

If this has to be a compromise to elevate google ratings at the expense of the reference credibility then so be it.

Is there any way to enhance the position/prominence of the Scientific name within the format of each entry?

e.g. A separate subtitle field containing the Scientific Name directly under the title


David

[StuartDH]

yep, it must be possible, by through hacking the default template that presents the data on the page

I'll have a look and see what I can come up with

Stu

[CloudedYellow]

Originally Posted by cybershot

If this has to be a compromise to elevate google ratings at the expense of the reference credibility then so be it.

David

This is the crux of the matter.

If WAB is intended for users to have a look at our images and make an id on that basis then I agree, so be it. Let us hope they don't send their records in to their County Recorders! I would mean that the extra detailed information that David has spent hours adding is not necessary.

If the A-Z is to be a world class credible database (which it easly has the potential to be) then scientific names need to be prominent. I think we are very lucky to have experts who are very forgiving about the use of common names - many experts are not.

Richard

PS Stuart I would be very grateful for a reply to

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/fo...ms-broken.html

if you could find the time please.

[cybershot]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

yep, it must be possible, by through hacking the default template that presents the data on the page

I'll have a look and see what I can come up with

Stu

Good man, and BTW the alternative listing in alpha sequence by either Common Name or Scientific Name is a great option!

David

[CloudedYellow]

Originally Posted by cybershot

Good man, and BTW the alternative listing in alpha sequence by either Common Name or Scientific Name is a great option!

David

Seconded.

I have just 'counted' the the number of entries in the A-Z.

We now have 589 give or take a few!!

[CloudedYellow]

Originally Posted by CloudedYellow

Seconded.

I have just 'counted' the the number of entries in the A-Z.

We now have 589 give or take a few!!

And some of those entries are crying out to be updated.

I would like to replace the existing A-Z image of Pleurotus cornucopiae with Andy Overall's impressive image

Pleurotus cornucopiae - Wildlife Photography

but wonder if I dare.....