I probably shouldn’t be revisiting this thread at this juncture, but as I get frustrated with myself wondering where I mislaid the file on rose species and ploidy, and another file concerning supposed color inheritance, I find myself wondering if there might be a means of having such resources “pinned” in appropriate locations. (I keep revisiting an idea of a MediaWiki template to organize such info, but I honestly probably do not know of what I speak when proposing such.)
I suppose that if the “search” capabilities are really refined, it might not be necessary, though combing through threads feels like it could potentially be cumbersome.
I wonder too if we have storage enough to mirror some defunct sites (such as, i.e. “The Uncommon Rose”) that provide information. (I would love to still have access to Rogers Roses as well, were the owner of that data willing. I loved the phyllogenetic organization of data on that site.)
Philip, regarding the Rogers Roses web site (I agree with you), it’s not an exact substitute but you could hunt down the three books by Rogers and Rix that they used to build the site (Roses, The Ultimate Guide to Roses, and The Quest for the Rose): Rogers Roses | Rose Pictures & Rose Reference
I find myself wondering if there might be a means of having such resources “pinned” in appropriate locations.
Browser bookmarks are made for just such personal use. Hopefully the Tagging features of the Discourse software will lend themselves to easier access. I’m running way behind on the forum update due to family commitments, btw.
I wonder too if we have storage enough to mirror some defunct sites (such as, i.e. “The Uncommon Rose”) that provide information. (I would love to still have access to Rogers Roses as well, were the owner of that data willing.
This is an interesting suggestion. I’ll bring it up at an upcoming RHA governance meeting. The issue is not technical, of course, its a matter of money for the bandwidth and storage and, as you say, copyright permissions and cooperation.
I am willing to do the technical part if someone steps up to first make the necessary arrangements with the copyright holders.
Kim, the page you linked actually exemplifies the very issues with outside links. I believe you will find some of them are dated. (It also cannot serve as a searchable database, though realistically, Google might play that role better.) Ours is certainly a more friendly search engine than e.g. GardenWeb, which Houzz has rendered useless.
Point taken on the browser bookmarks, Don, though mine are nearly as well-organized and cluttered as my other files, and there as well, I am dismayed at the number of now-defunct links I have… (Technology: The reason I have come to appreciate my books…)
Don, I sure don’t mean to burden you with all these ideas. I wish I were less of a Luddite. (The appropriate response to such would otherwise probably be, “That’s an interesting idea. Why don’t YOU do that?”)
Yes, Philip, outside links are a real PITA. It’s a huge reason they have been resisted with HMF for so many years. Providing catalog links for references for descriptions and breeding, when they change and fall into oblivion every few months.