PlantFiles search

I discovered the new PF search. I love it..... Thank you Dave.

Ditto....saw the green button, ignored it, ignored it again, then tried it. Wow.....super search for someone like me with a less than perfect memory for botanical names. Thanks Dave.

I just stumbled on it myself and had to return back to the main PlantFiles Page to make sure my browser wasn't messed up 'cause I tend to always have several DG tabs open. Oh, yeah, very nice!!!

Donna

Thanks, I'm glad you like it. On Monday I asked Terry for her top 2 feature requests, and among the 5 she gave me, the PF search was #1. :-)

dave

hehehehe. I like how you slid in you asked for two requests and I gave you five ;o) But it's true! And it's true that improving the search in PlantFiles has been a high priority for a while. I feel like I know the database like the back of my hand, because I'm in it so much, and I have some admin tools that aren't available to everyone.

But even with that familiarity and "tricks up my sleeve", it was becoming increasing difficult for me to find a specific entry among the nearly 100,000 that exist. I figured if *I* was having that much trouble, pity the poor typical user - or worse yet, the first time user.

One question I have is whether the new search tool is used to count against a non-subscriber's daily limit. (I don't think there's necessarily a "right" answer to that question - my guess is it should depend on how much of a system drain the new search is, versus the old free-form text box - but I figure it will come up at some point, and it'd be nice to know ;o)

Yes, the new search works just like the old one, inasmuch as it counts 10 searches for non-subscribers and then is disabled for them.

It's not a particularly huge drain on the system at all, but it is indeed one of those benefits that, if someone uses the PF that much, they really ought to be supporting the site.

dave

Agreed ;o)

I'm interested in hearing from Firefox users who have used the search recently. :)

dave

Okay, not only Firefox but also IE now (of course, Firefox gets priority but I do want to try to support the minority who use IE).

Do a search, and be amazed as you begin typing the genus (or whatever).

dave

Oh wow... I use Firefox *AND* am on dial-up... and saw no reduction in response time as I typed in something simple and started seeing the 'checkmark' or 'red x', as appropriate.

For example, typing in "yellow foxglove" for the common name opened up a column on the right side which gave me a green checkmark; search gave me 1 exact match. :)

Typing in the letters for "yellow snapdragon" gave me a green checkmark until I entered the first "n", at which point I got the red x and knew not to pursue it further.

The new search resembles the Firefox "find on this page" feature, which I adore! Excellent!!!

I'm glad you like it. :)

*gently removes any shovel that Dave might've been offered earlier in other threads and pats that boy on the head*

;)

chuckling

I use Foxfire and IE. I have played with the search in both and I love it. It sure let's you know pretty quick if you are spelling something wrong.

Using IE with great success.

One thing I did notice is that if you know the "common" name of a plant, for example:
Common Names =
Madagascar Ocotillo
Madagascan Ocotillo
African Ocotillo

but not the botanical name, it might be difficult to find it if the Common Name field is filled in with only a Genus.

In some cases there is no widely used common name, but in the case of Alluaudia procera there are several widely used common names. I've sent an "error report" to the help desk on this particular one. It might be something we could all check as we wander through the PlantFiles, as I think there are many members and casual visitors who still use common names more often than not.

Edit: Thanks Terry....she is a wiz! It's already corrected. :-)

This message was edited Mar 18, 2005 8:04 AM

In searching for a cultivar name, I found:

Common Name = Chocolate Chip
yields three responses: http://davesgarden.com/pf/adv_search.php?search_type%5Bcommon%5D=contains&searcher%5Bcommon%5D=&search_type%5Bfamily%5D=contains&searcher%5Bfamily%5D=&search_type%5Bgenus%5D=contains&searcher%5Bgenus%5D=&search_type%5Bspecies%5D=contains&searcher%5Bspecies%5D=&search_type%5Bcultivar%5D=contains&searcher%5Bcultivar%5D=chocolate+chip&search_type%5Bhybridizer%5D=contains&searcher%5Bhybridizer%5D=&Search=Search

Situational Example:
"I was looking for a common ground cover called Chocolate Chip that I saw in a friend's garden, but you don't have it in your PlantFiles."

Ajuga reptans is in the PlantFiles under the cultivar 'Valfredda' with this additional information:
Additional cultivar information: syn. Chocolate Chip

Would it be possible to add that line of information from the database into the search criteria?

Perhaps. Right now it does NOT search synonyms at all. That's on the TODO.

dave

dave,
I also appreciate the new improved plantfiles search, but there is one little improvement I would love to see.
Previously, a search on a genus obtained by opening one plant and clicking on the genus, gave the list of species in alphabetical order. The order now seems to be the order in which the species were entered into the PF.
Could we please have at least an option for alphabetic ordering of the results of a search,
Ken

I had given up using the PF search for some plants (hostas and daylilies especially) in favor of Google, since I was getting so many results. I just tried some of the cultivars that had previously been a problem and was ecstatic to find "One Result Found". Thanks for the change. It would be great if the world worked the way Dave and Co. do to address and resolve problems.

I must be the only idiot out there.. what on earth does 'value' mean? I finally figured it somehow means the name (since that was the only area to type it in), but I still don't get it.

By the way, I double-ditto Kennedyh's request for alphabetical listings, if possible.

It's now alphabetized.

dave

Good point. I am falling down on the job when it comes to testing - it didn't occur to me to think about how intuitive - or not - those titles are! I didn't even look at the title headings because I already *knew* what they were for. ;o)

Maybe it should say "Enter name" (or something similarly explanatory) there?

Actually, it probably makes sense to stand back and look at all three headings:
Search Type
Type
Value

Any suggestions for changes that would make these more helpful to a new user encountering the search feaure?

I think Dave is playing with us. :-)

Didn't Species follow Genus yesterday, this morning? LOL

Tried spelling dichotoma a couple different ways before I realized there wasn't a hybridizer named "dichotoma."

And Cultivar is way up there by Common Name. Yikes! I practically enter new plants without looking at the order of the boxes and now I'm going to have to learn a new order for the search. :(

I like that the search list you get after you search will be alphabetized, but I am with Happenstance, I don't like that the search boxes changed order.

Terry, here are some suggestions for changing the search page headings;
Change "Search Type" to "Search By"
Change "Value" to "Enter Search Word(s)"

I find "Type" as being the more difficult one to try to title in such a way as to be easliy understood by a novice searcher. Changing it to "Search Parameter" would probably be as confusing or more so. "Search Type" might be OK. What about "Search Method"?

This message was edited Mar 19, 2005 11:30 PM

I have to do more clicking to find what I want. Then I have to click "generalized search" to get a result. What am I doing wrong, for it seems way more confusing to me.

kathys999, give me an example of for what you are searching. Maybe I can help you.

I got it htop, thanks. :)

kathys999, great!

I found the old search convenient, in that there was an input field for the simple search right on the PlantFiles home page. Now I have to click twice to get there....and be called confused along the way! :-) I don't mind the clicking, and the new search tool is great. But sometimes I just want the simple one for a quick check. Nothing to do with confusion at all, I tell ya! (although some may differ.....)

I'm guessing the statements "This is an advanced search. If it confuses you, you may like our generalized search" are meant to be as reassuring as possible for plant newbies and/or computer newbies, and I'm all in favour of that. But can it be changed to something like "if you prefer our simple search, click here"? Or better yet, have the simple search available on the same page?

Shannon

Seems as though it is a little backwards, as in shouldn't you go to a generalized search first and then click on "advanced" if so desired? I just keep going to general search, which is like the old search. Always worked for me. I will say I was really upset when I first went in there and saw it changed and I was confused. I use the PlantFiles ALOT and really enjoy looking at the pictures of something I have, or may want to purchase. I was so displeased I was looking for a different plant database to switch over to. However, I got ahold of myself. ha...

I think the advanced search is great for people who know their plants, so they can get less hits and find what they want faster. Maybe someday I'll be one of them, but I can't say I'm really working towards that. I'm just having lots of fun. What I LOVE LOVE LOVE about the Plant Files are the pictures that show the flowers/trees/shrubs at a distance, showing the over all look of them. Rather than what a catalog shows you, a close up of the best flower they could find.

It may seem a little backwards to not present the generalized search first, but my guess is that by downplaying it, we can help more users to learn to rely on the advanced search, with the generalized search as a fall-back for new users or when you just can't find it any other way.

Thanks Dave for reordering the Search to mimic the order for adding a new plant. :-)

Yes, I like the search better this way too.

Why does DG want to persuade us to only use the advanced search? What if we actually prefer the general search for some occasions?

It's not that the advanced one "confuses" me (!); I just don't find it the most suitable or convenient for some of the searches I want to do. Is there any harm to be done by having the general one as an option on the same page?

Shannon

Dave, you reported

Yes, I repented earlier today on the order of the search fields. It seemed like there was a pretty even number of votes for it either way, so that meant that either way, half of the people will be happy. I chose to make the ones I agreed with happy this time. :-)

Shannon, the general search is available on the same page as the advanced search. It isn't quite as noticeable as the advanced search fields, but it is prominently displayed ahead of the advanced search fields. My personal take on why it's good to persuade people to use the new search forum is for two reasons:

1) We have nearly 95,000 entries. To do a general search, the system must search through something like 600,000 fields (each entry has fields for common name, family name, genus, species, cultivar, and hybridizer - not to mention synonyms..) If you can specify which of those main fields to search on, it's naturally going to be more efficient (and probably faster) than searching all those fields.

2) It's arguably better for the user (better search results), especially once they understand they don't have to fill in every field.

? - I'm looking at the PF home page right now in another window, and I don't see the input box for the generalized search. Can someone point me in the right direction please?