[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Species Maintenance List
I think the first step in the process would be publishing the list, which is
already in progress. In my mind the next logical step would be to allow
members update the fish they keep. I believe we already have some areas
which require a password. Adding a form to make changes to the fish they
keep is a little more difficult, but is done every day. It would also be
possible to send an automated e-mail to those members with e-mail accounts
listing the species in their "profile" and reminding them to update it if
needed. This would limit the data entry and should reduce the need for
manual data entry which IMHO could be the biggest bottleneck.
There is a lot of potential with a web-enabled database. If setup properly
ans sufficiently tested, they are very reliable. I think you would find
that most banks, insurance comapnies, credit card compinies and a great
number of retailers use them 24x7x365 without too many problems.
Drummond
>From: George Slusarczuk <yurko at warwick_net>
>Reply-To: killietalk at aka_org
>To: killietalk at aka_org
>Subject: Re: Species Maintenance List
>Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 15:04:29 +0000
>
>Hello Tom,
>
>As you know, the German (DKG) annual Species Maintenance Report lists
>the number of people keeping a particular fish, including how many
>pairs/fry they have. That is very helpful -- it shows how widely
>distributed is any species/location.
>
>Obviously, they list holdings of only those people that reported them
>(and complain about the low participation!), but that is the nature of
>the beast -- people that do not report what they have will never be
>included in ANY sort of a database.
>
>An automatic data field showing when a record has been updated presents
>no work and _could_ be helpful.
>
>Best,
>
>George
>
>
>Tom wrote:
> >
> > I cannot believe that I am sending this many messages to the list
><smiles>
> >
> > Here is how printed report works. It is very simple on purpose. Each
> > section is a separate entry
> >
> > Species - Population - Status - Comments
> >
> > The first two are obvious
> >
> > Status is: In the hobby or no entry.
> >
> > Why am I doing it this way? Because we need a reference that tells us
> > what is or is not in the hobby. I have too little data to be able to
> > discern HOW MANY people are maintaining the species. In many many cases
>- I
> > have a single report of a fish I know has many keepers.
> >
> > Now in terms of doing it to reflect the situation of each species - I
> > considered many many options running from a 0-10 number system where 0
>=
> > None Known to 10 = too many to count to a system designating 'rare' to
> > 'common'
> >
> > The reality is this however: I can base everything on the data I obtain
>-
> > but I know for a fact - I am going to hear dozens if not hundreds of
> > complaints saying - "I have lots of that fish" from people who never
>replied
> > to the many requests for data. People are simply that way.
> >
> > Comments are a space for you to fill in your own thoughts.
> >
> > On the web We may make the Status Change regularly to another system
>since I
> > do have data in my system of how many exist etc. - and since that can
>be
> > an easily changing number - 3 years from now it will still reflect the
> > status in the hobby. But the report itself will be a few months if not
> > several months out of date when it arrives in people's hands - therefore
>in
> > a sense out of date.
> >
> > Hope this makes sense to everyone
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Doug Karpa-Wilson" <dkarpawi at indiana_edu>
> > To: <killietalk at aka_org>
> > Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 2:05 PM
> > Subject: Dates in list.RE: Species Maintenance List
> >
> > > I'm sure that Barry and Tom have a clever solution to this problem
> > already,
> > > but I was wondering how one might handle the aggregate statistics? I
>had
> > > two random, probably useless thoughts for solutions:
> > >
> > > 1) having an average data of information for each record (i.e. if
>there
> > are
> > > 3 keepers of Fp. tomgradyi who reported on 1/1/98, 1/1/99 and 1/1/00
> > > respectively, the average report date would be 1/1/99.)
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > 2) have separate tables for species data that include data that are
>fewer
> > > than 2 years old (say) and one for all the data or something. As if
>you
> > > needed more work!
> > >
> > > Doug
> > >
> > >
> > > >Barry,
> > > >Please make sure you have a date field next to any published
>information
> > for
> > > >this project.
> > > >Thanks,
> > > >mike stoecker
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Doug Karpa Wilson
> > >
> > > Department of Biology
> > > Jordan Hall
> > > Indiana University
> > > Bloomington, IN 47405
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------
> > > See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
> > >
> >
> > ---------------
> > See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
>---------------
>See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
---------------
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
Follow-Ups: