Standard Naming of 2+ Gene Animals?

[Eric Alan]

So many times I see the name of the same multi-gene animal called different things. I'm not talking about when an animal's name has been shortened to avoid a tongue-twisting string of individual morphs (e.g., Butter Fire Pinstripe Spider vs Nuclear Spinner). I'm talking about switching the order of the morphs involved in the same animal when there isn't a shorter version available (e.g., Enchi Pastel vs Pastel Enchi).

Is there a standard way the morphs are supposed to be named? On WOBP, they are all alphabetized but that's the only place where I see this. Wouldn't it be easier when searching for a morph online if we didn't have to search for all possible variations of the same animal?

Just my .

Eric

[TheSnakeGuy]

as long as there are hobbyist breeders then I doubt there will ever be a 'standard' to the naming process beyond alphabetical.

[interloc]

This topic has been brought up before and it would be so awesome if a system was put in place for naming. Problem is it would be very hard to do at this point. I've always liked the alphabetical thing. Just list the morph names alphabetically. You run into problems when talking about morphs that have been named forever. Who really wants to say pastel spider when talking about bumblebees? It's a bumblebee right? So, right off the hop it would have been good, but we are too far along now. Meh

[ChaosAffect]

I know what you mean. I've been trying to locate a male Albino Ghost. I've seen them called Albino Hypos, Sunglows, etc... Makes life difficult.

[Pythonfriend]

no standard way, also names often change.


The solution is better search engine technology. On WOBP, if you use advanced search to search for all morphs containing a certain codominant gene, it will not find morphs that contain the super. And if you search for a 2-gene animal but the two genes are in the wrong order, it will not find it. Sometimes morphs that have a specific nickname do not have the containing genes under "also known as", so they cannot be found using the standard search. You can do an advanced search for GHI and wont find lesser super GHI or pasel super GHI.

Why should we not be able to list the genes how we like and have to standartize it just because there are a few lines of code missing in some search algorithm on one website?

The guys over at WOBP just need to buy a google mini. Its a piece of hardware designed to be ultra-effective in crawling and indexing databases, and produces search functions of highest quality. And as people use it to search and click certain results while ignoring others, the artificial intelligence of the damn thing learns and gets better at it. It can deal with synonyms, typing errors, and grammatical varieties.

Here is what it can (and automatically will) search and index: "its search capabilities include searching web content, other file types (e.g. html, pdf, office documents), databases (Oracle, MySQL, Microsoft SQL Server, IBM DB2, Sybase) and content management systems (EMC Documentum, FileNet, Open Text LiveLink, Microsoft SharePoint)".


Really, technology is there to serve us, not the other way around, jigsaw blast = lemonblast mojave, and when i say mojave pinstripe pastel i dont want to worry about sorting these alphabetically.


EDIT: wow, a lot of replies slipped in as i was typing....

i think breeders should put up the nickname, and then also list the individual genes, im no internet technology expert but im sure you can make the code so that search engines will perceive that list of morphs as one piece of information. Basically give the search engines the data they need in order to do a good job, and then let the search engines handle it. Otherwise, i think you could waste a human lifetime trying to get it all cleared up and standartized and still fail.