Learning Center What is a mineral?The most common minerals on earth Information for Educators Mindat Articles The Elements The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Geologic Time

Minerals by Properties Minerals by Chemistry Advanced Locality Search Random Mineral Random Locality Search by minID Localities Near Me Search Articles Search Glossary More Search Options

The Mindat Manual Add a New Photo Rate Photos Locality Edit Report Coordinate Completion Report Add Glossary Item

Mining Companies Statistics Users Mineral Museums Clubs & Organizations Mineral Shows & Events The Mindat Directory Device Settings The Mineral Quiz

Photo Search Photo Galleries Search by Color New Photos Today New Photos Yesterday Members' Photo Galleries Past Photo of the Day Gallery Photography

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

GeneralSpecimens with multiple species on them

16th Dec 2016 17:48 UTCRolf Luetcke Expert

Today I was going through some material and I came across a question I wanted to pass onto a discussion on mindat. I have watched several photos of specimens that turned out to be two photos of the same piece and they were merged. This brought up something for me as a micro photographer. I so often see specimens with multiple good crystalized minerals on one specimen. Today I hit one from New Mexico that had 5 species on one thumbnail size piece, all different minerals and well crystalized.

Now the question comes in since I know many have the same thing. When you take a photo of one of the minerals and post it but have also taken photos of, let's say 3 other minerals, I know it is one specimen but each mineral is new to a location or not many photos are there for that species.

When you post a different mineral from the same specimen it has then received a different ID number.

What is the thing to do here. I know I have a number of these situations in my gallery. Since each photo stands by itself as a different mineral species I have always posted these since they are a different mineral from this location.

I wonder if this has been discussed before and what people think???

16th Dec 2016 18:07 UTCNiels Brouwer

What you could try is uploading each photo as a new photo rather than a daughter photo of the first one. This way you can enter a different mineral in the primary field, but manually add the same MinID as the others. They would still share the ID but will appear as separate entries in the respective mineral galleries.

I'm not 100% positive as I've never really tried it myself, but I think I have recently seen multiple photos of the same specimen in a photo gallery with the same ID, so I presume that could only be achieved this way.

16th Dec 2016 18:28 UTCDebbie Woolf Manager

I disagree with this method Neils, makes extra work for managers to link individual photos. Each photo should be assigned same minID. If you change the main mineral on each child photo they will go into correct gallery.

16th Dec 2016 18:32 UTCJeff Weissman Expert

Here is what I do - make all of your images, then upload the first - it gets a new MinID. Click on the MinID, and at the bottom of the page, there is an option to add another photo of this specimen. Click on this, make all of the necessary changes to dimensions, species present, and caption, and add the new image. Each image added in this way becomes a parent photo, all linked automagically to the same MinID

16th Dec 2016 18:41 UTCMichael Hatskel

Hi all,

So is this about the ability to assign MinID or about the completeness of the description?

I totally agree with Rolf: there are many photos where only one mineral is identified, while the specimen contains a lot more and all that is visible on the picture.

Multiple species obviously present in the photo shall be listed -- that would serve as a record for the database.

There are some contributors who provide plenty of details about the photographic techniques used for a particular photo, but none on the mineralogy of the specimen.

Another piece of information often missing from the descriptions is naming the matrix in the matrix specimens. I fully realize that it may be hard to properly identify the matrix rock without analyses, but Mindat descriptions shall be better than the dealer descriptions where it suffices to say "on matrix".

Maybe the criteria for admitting photos into the general gallery could require more complete descriptions (all visible species mentioned; matrix identified), as opposed to the photos going into personal galleries?

Thanks

16th Dec 2016 19:38 UTCRolf Luetcke Expert

Thank you for your input so far. I will have to look into the suggestion Jeff made about the Mineral ID and whether it will work that way.

What I was concerned about is the example here, a wulfenite from the Rowley mine for example has a great pocket of mimetite on a different part of the piece and the photo would only show the one species but is actually on the specimen with the wulfenite photo taken first and posted. I had not known about the possibility of using the mineral id to then add a different photo.

I always try and identify all the minerals when I have photos of numerous species in one photo.

What I was concerned with was for some small mines where I have collected in my local area and no species were listed before I collected there. There may be ten or fifteen species I find but they may be on the main ore that contains multiple species. To put photos of each mineral for the location I had not known what method was used to be sure each species photo was on the page. I will see what happens with the use of photo id number and then separate species on the same id number. Since the photo id numbers have not been around that long I am sure this will be a situation with a lot of micro photographers in the earlier times posting specimen photos.

Again, thanks for the thoughts.

Rolf

17th Dec 2016 01:35 UTCD. Peck

I really wish that all photos were indexed under the name of the principal mineral shown and then listed the names of other identifiable minerals.

17th Dec 2016 02:06 UTCKeith Compton 🌟 Manager

Hi

I agree with Debbie, the additional photos should be child photos. Do this at the time you upload the second photo and just change the order of the minerals on the specimen.

In response to listing all the minerals present, not all collectors know the various minerals on the specimen, particularly once you get out of the first couple of hundred "easily identifiable ones", visual ID becomes more difficult if not impossible. But yes, once the accessory minerals become know we should encourage updating the photo details.

Cheers

Keith

17th Dec 2016 13:50 UTCNiels Brouwer

Debbie Woolf Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I disagree with this method Neils, makes extra

> work for managers to link individual photos. Each

> photo should be assigned same minID. If you change

> the main mineral on each child photo they will go

> into correct gallery.

So reviewing a child photo is more work for a manager than reviewing a second photo that already has the correct ID entered? I'm sorry, not being one myself I didn't know about that side of it of course. :)

On a side note - I should probably get my name changed someday, this one always seems to be a bit of a challenge to get right for the English speaking world. ;)

17th Dec 2016 14:08 UTCDebbie Woolf Manager

I'm sorry for my typo Niels. I can't speak for other managers but when I review photos in galleries for accuracy it takes a lot of time to link up child photos to the parent, like Rolf has said one specimen five minerals five photos if all are individual photos how is anyone suppose to know they are all linked to the one specimen? As we know not all members will add a description so we can't rely on that.

I recall a topic asking how many minerals where known on one specimen? If they are not linked together we may never have an answer.

17th Dec 2016 16:33 UTCHarold Moritz 🌟 Expert

So, if I understand this thread correctly, I can change the list of mineral species or their order in child photos? I thought these all had to be the same. At least before the minID thing was started. I have many separate parent photos of different minerals but are actually on the same specimen. I did this so that each mineral would have a camera symbol in their locality home page and thus users could find pictures of that mineral. Conversely, I have many child photos where the primary mineral listed is not in the photo, but part of the same piece as the parent, because I thought the mineral list/order had to be the same for parent/child combos. Personally, I think a locality matters much, much more than a specimen. A specimen is rather arbitrary, I could split it up into a zillion separate pieces if I wanted to, and all their minerals would still show up in the locality page. But if I can change the mineral list between the parent/child photos, then I may now do that for reasons stated above.

how is anyone suppose to know they are all linked to the one specimen?

I often write those details in the comments space in the mineral page for that locality, pages that many contributors do not fill out and if they did would provide a wealth of info on mineral associations, crystal habit, color, size, etc. Finding these details in captions is not ideal. I know that many friends dont know those mineral detail pages, linked from the "i" symbols next to the mineral names, even exist, or that they can view them in bulk via the alternate "Detailed" view of a locality page.

17th Dec 2016 17:05 UTCDebbie Woolf Manager

I am not aware of there being an issue changing the mineral species on child photos Harold, as long as the parent photo lists all species with the main mineral being first. Those pages you are talking about we (managers) call them locentry (locality entry) :-) I also learnt or reacquainted myself with the detailed view you mentioned, thanks.

18th Dec 2016 13:48 UTCRolf Luetcke Expert

Harold,

You said exactly why I had posted this. I have done the same because of the different species for a locality.

It is something I was aware of recently because of the fairly recent mineral id and that opened the question for me.

I did the same as you have and just wondered if there was a way to do it to not have multiple id numbers on the same specimen.

Debbie told of the better way to do it in future.

I know Harold is not the only person who this same situation has happened.

I know there are probably many out there with the same situation.

Debbie, it is still a little problem one may have to change in ones mind about listing all the species on the original parent photo so this can take place.

I often do not do this since each species stands on its own and I did what Harold said, posted to add the species to the locality page. I had not been aware that how Debbie said is the way to do it.

I think I have opened a can or worms because I am sure many have done what Harold and I have done and I know there will be a very large number of photos that are separate id numbers but actually on the same single specimen.

Changing this for all of us who are posting this way may take a while to get used to.

Thank you Harold, I knew I was not the only one doing it the way you also have been.

I will have to try this in future to avoid the id and only that number for a single specimen problem issue.

Rolf

18th Dec 2016 16:59 UTCRolf Luetcke Expert

Hi all,

A friend just told me something that made me think a bit easier.

The thing in his suggestion was not to find a problem but to find a solution.

Since the whole id thing is connected to mindat and not ones personal collection, it doesn't really matter with the numbers, if one has only one or more than one on a specimen.

It doesn't change ones personal collection and if the photos, whether multiple attributed to the same specimen are on the pages and don't interfere with one another, it is not actually a problem in ones own collection, only if mindat insists on accuracy on this. So, I would say that for the Harolds, Rolfs and others on mindat, no harm in going on with ones normal routine.

It was to me an intriguing question but only associates to someone who will use mindat id numbers in their own collection.

I think as long as good photos of species from localities get onto mindat, so as Harold said, one can view what is there on the locality page, it is not an important issue.

It would only be a problem if one had to do it only one way or the other.

Hope I didn't cause any problems here.

Rolf

18th Dec 2016 19:10 UTCD. Peck

I am not sure of what is being suggested, or even of current practice, for indicating multiple species on a single specimen. My use of the photo galleries most often is in an attempt to identify associated species. Knowing the locality and usually the main mineral, I will scan the photos to see if any have associated crystals that look like unknown ones on my specimen. Therefore, what I am looking for are photos of the known princpal mineral, from the known locality, that show associated minerals like those on my specimen. All identified and listed on the same photo.

It is fine to have separate photos under the listings of more than one mineral, but if I don't know the names of the associated minerals, I will likely never find them.

I am probably confused in what is being suggested, and if I have muddied the water I apologize.

Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: April 26, 2024 07:24:24

Go to top of page