Help|Log In|Register|
Home PageMindat NewsThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusManagement TeamContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatSponsor a PageSponsored PagesTop Available PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on MindatThe Mindat Store
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryRandom MineralSearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
Search For:
Mineral Name:
Locality Name:
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportAdd Glossary Item
StatisticsMember ListBooks & MagazinesMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryHow to Link to MindatDevice Settings
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day Gallery

Number of Photos

Posted by AJMI  
Number of Photos
August 19, 2012 06:48PM
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, 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))
Auriferous Chalcopyrite
Corundum (Var: Oriental Topaz)

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, corundum has 594 photos listed.
- On the main corundum page it says Show Corundum Photos (1306).
- Then on the Corundum Photo Gallery page 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?
Re: Number of Photos
August 19, 2012 07:49PM
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 07:52PM by Alfredo Petrov.

Your Email:


  • Valid attachments: jpg, jpeg, gif, png, pdf
  • No file can be larger than 1000 KB
  • 3 more file(s) can be attached to this message

Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically. If the code is hard to read, then just try to guess it right. If you enter the wrong code, a new image is created and you get another chance to enter it right.

Mineral and/or Locality is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2015, except where stated. relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us Current server date and time: October 6, 2015 10:53:45