Number of Photos

I'm not sure if this is an error or not, but it seems to be.

On Mindat's statistics page, under Number of Photographs per Mineral [www.mindat.org], it lists some minerals as having one photo when in fact they don't have any photos.

For instance, according to the statistics page, all of these minerals have one photo but in fact, they don't have any:

Anorthoclase (Var: Analbite (of Winchell))
Antiperthite
Barium-zinc-alumopharmacosiderite
Beta-Uranophane
Bracewellite
Manganbrucite
Cadwaladerite
Caesium-Kupletskite
Auriferous Chalcopyrite
Alumo-chalcosiderite
Corundum (Var: Oriental Topaz)
...etc.

And also, according to that same Number of Photographs per Mineral page, some minerals that supposedly have one image actually have more then one - such as Beryl Group and Cerite.

As well, the number of photos differs depending on the page you're on for the same mineral or mineral group - such as corundum. For instance:
- According to the Number of Photographs per Mineral page [www.mindat.org], corundum has 594 photos listed.
- On the main corundum page [www.mindat.org] it says Show Corundum Photos (1306).
- Then on the Corundum Photo Gallery page [www.mindat.org] at the bottom it says (1 to 10 of 878 total).
How can there be three different totals for the number of corundum photos?
Which total is actually the correct one?

Partly this apparent discrepancy depends on whether the species is listed in first place or not (for those specimens that have more than one species listed). The Bracewellite, to use one of your examples, does have a photo, but it's listed in second place on a photo that lists Guyanaite as its principal species. (Whether or not any of those species is individually visible on the photo is a whole different issue.) Another apparent discrepancy results from whether only the simple species was listed in the photo title or just the name of one of its subvarieties ("Corundum" +/- "Ruby", etc.).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2012 06:52PM by Alfredo Petrov.