[tsunami]

What would you like to see changed? I need some feedback!

 

[MantisX]

Some of the plants there have incomplete or no descriptions, other than that its the sweetest ive ever seen.

 

[trenac]

Have a selection for common name, in case the latin name is not known.

 

[Simpte 27]

I just found out there is a plant finder! lol

 

[pineapple]

Carlos,

It would be interesting to see how the Plant Finder database is designed. Specifically, what fields are allocated to each entry.

I would like to see the ability to query based on <water hardness> or <GH/KH parameters>. I might be living in a soft water zone and looking for more plants suitable for the local water. I hope that each plant in the database has a field for hardness parameters.

Everyone has differing water chemistry and aquarium environments, but allowing for that a clearer suggestion of nutrient requirements would be helpful. It might be hard to have different fields for NO3, PO4, TE, etc etc, but if we could have the nutrient requirements for each plant detailed in the same position on the page it would be easier to locate. If there are no special requirements as regards nutrients, then perhaps state: <No special nutrient requirements> as a placeholder.

Otherwise, I think this is a great project which has already proved useful to me. The photos are usually helpful. The layout is good enough for my purposes. The navigation works for me.

Andrew Cribb

 

[tsunami]

I am wary of adding a fiield for water hardness. It is a contentious issue. In recent years, there has been a big push for the idea that there are "no soft water plants."

If ther were I am not sure where I should draw the line. In each plant description, there is a discussion of nutrient requirements with the occassional blurb on water hardness if it is important.

Just for the record, there are about 120 plant species and varieties listed in the Plant Finder so I wouldn't call it small by any means... I think we're the third or fourth largest plant database on the net.

Carlos

 

[MiamiAG]

This is great feedback, thank you.

If you are not happy with the design or find the Plant Finder difficult to use, it would be very helpful if you would post how you would change it.

Thanks again.

 

[Neptun]

I miss the opportunity of searching for multiple things at the same time.
for example 'red easy stem'

other than that it is very useful, and I tend to use it whenever I'm looking for info on plants.

 

[Rob G]

I think it would be nice to include photographs of different uses of each plant. The database, as it currently exists, is great for plant identification. However, I often am interested in seeing how others have used a given plants in their aquascapes. Perhaps the database could provide a small number, say three, landscape view photographs that allow one to better see the plant "in action." This may help to further the evolution of our hobby as it could include not-so-common uses of a plant. I personally fall into the habit of using a given plant in its typical place in the aquarium. For example, glosso is a foreground plant. Well, why not create a hill covered in glosso as a backdrop for a foreground of larger-leafed plants? Just a thought.

Overall, the database is great. Thanks to Carlos and others for their contributions to its success.

 

[pineapple]

Carlos,

I didn't realize soft/hard water and plants was controversial. I will do some more research on the Net to see what has been said and educate myself further. In Tepoot's book, plants that are sensitive to copper Cu are noted. Perhaps the soft/hard issue might be distilled down to whether plants are susceptible to calcium in the water or some such thing.

Rob G's idea about usage of plant types in aquascaping is interesting although in various books and articles that usually comes down to "fore-, mid-, and background" as the description which is somewhat limited anyway. Perhaps a link to a photo of the plant as used in a "successful" aquascape.

Andrew Cribb

 

[tsunami]

Rob G, that is a really interesting idea. I know how to put it in action, but we'll need a volunteer to make the plant species described "colored" and the rest of the image in black and white. Something like this?:

Carlos

 

[MiamiAG]

Nice

 

[Rob G]

Carlos, that looks great. Although, I hadn't really thought about doing it that way, with only the plant in question colored. As long as you keep the original "focus" photos, then the aquascape photos of the plant in question would not necessarily need to highlight the plant. One could probably pick it out fairly easily.

 

[Capt.]

Great work on the Plant Finder! I used to go to other plant databases when I wanted to know something, now I come to APC first. Much more thorough information than anything I've found. Also the best I know of for rare or more unique plants.

I have two very small complaints. I'd like to see information posted where it says information coming soon. The one I'm specifically wondering about is Ludwigia sp. Guinea.

The second is sometimes I found the pictures are super close, which would be very good for identification purposes I suppose. I like to see what the plant as a whole looks like and this can be difficult with only a very close pic to go by.

I also have one question. I noticed there are no Vallisneria in there. Any plans to add some in the future?

 

[Mnemia]

I think it's great overall. There is only one other thing I would add, although I don't know how easy it would be to implement given the current way it is structured with the pulldown menus and the inherent imprecision involved. That would be to have some way to search for plants based on "common" and "incorrect/obsolete" names.

Since reading these forums I've learned all the scientific names so I know how to find what I'm looking for, but I've referred people to the plantfinder before who don't and they had trouble finding what they were looking for since they didn't actually know the correct nomenclature and their LFS sold them plants labelled with an incorrect name. Some sort of feature that lets people search for these names and then redirects them to the real page with the actual scientific name would be nice as a learning tool.

 

[Faruk Gençöz]

I enjoy playing with Plant Finder. Many options, very attractive photographs, important species... I don't know what to add. With more species it would be better. Adding an aquascape example idea is excellent. And what I can suggest is the etymology. It is hard to memorize the Latin names but etymology help a lot. The meaning of the names most of the time gives the most brief info about the plant.

 

[MiSo]

like someone said above, a common name feature would be nice

 

[JaySilverman]

Common name feature. Other then that just keep doing what you're doing. More pictures would be great. Also maybe an emmersed picture feature would be cool too. I have a few good pics of Polysperma to get you started

 

[neonfish3]

And what I can suggest is the etymology. It is hard to memorize the Latin names but etymology help a lot. The meaning of the names most of the time gives the most brief info about the plant.

I like this idea:idea: The origin of words help make it interesting, and easier to remember. My only other idea is to have to have the scientific names with a phonetic pronunciation. I have a good book that lists all the aquatic plants this way:

Ceratophyllum demersum (cer-at-oh-FILL-um de-MER-sum)
Coontail, hornwort
Ceratophyllum (Gk.) ceras: a horn + phyllon: leaf; demersum (L.) submerged

The plantfinder is the best database I've seen on-line.
Without tsumami here anymore, is someone else working on it now?

 

[jeff63851]

It took me a while to find out how to get all of the plants in the database, and it was confusing at first. Also, since I'm very bad at spelling those plant scientific names, it would be helpful if the program tried to find the closest one possible.