|
Questions, Answers and Comments by Category
-
-
I have been looking at some of the member ratings for various cultivars, and to my mind there is a bit of a problem with them. While they are perhaps more helpful than no ratings at all, the complete anonymity of them means there is no way of checking which climate range the rater was talking about. If I rate a rose as excellent for vigour it's unlikely to be much use to someone in Denmark, and vice versa.
I can somewhat understand if people would like to keep their ratings anonymous, but in this case it seems to me that including a field for climate, or location, would make the ratings much more relevant. I haven't thought through the coding and resource usage implications of this idea (back end logic is not my forte anyway) but it seems like it would be a good thing if it's doable.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
26 JAN 15 by
Jay-Jay
I agree, that would be, a difficult-one to realize, but good extension... But I think that no-one that/who is in his right mind and lives in a zone where there are no frosts, will fill in the box for cold hardiness. The ratings ought to be seen as a completion of the general description of the rose with some practice/field-experience by the users/members of HMF.
|
REPLY
|
Oh sure, they wouldn't fill in the box for cold hardiness, but they probably will fill in the boxes for bloom frequency, foliage, vigour, disease resistance and maybe a couple of others, all of which can vary dramatically for the same rose depending on the climate.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
26 JAN 15 by
Jay-Jay
You're right again... That's why the comments and experiences written by users of HMF are invaluable! And highly appreciated.
|
REPLY
|
|