SUPPORT US. If mindat.org is important to you, click here to donate to our Fall 2019 fundraiser!
Log InRegister
Home PageAbout MindatThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusWho We AreContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatCorporate SponsorshipSponsor a PageSponsored PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on Mindat
Learning CenterWhat is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthInformation for EducatorsMindat ArticlesThe ElementsBooks & Magazines
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
Search For:
Mineral Name:
Locality Name:
Keyword(s):
 
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
Mining CompaniesStatisticsUsersMineral MuseumsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice Settings
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day GalleryMineral Photography

Mineral PhotographyPOTD August 2, 2018 What are the other minerals?

2nd Aug 2018 16:55 BSTKeith Wood

Today's picture of the day, a lovely specimen of azurite and chrysocolla, has at least two or more minerals in it that are not identified in the description.


The black matrix on which the crystals sit is clearly crystalline, and should be identified.

There are acicular white(?) crystals growing on, or emerging from, the black mineral.

There is a small cluster of green crystals to the right of the large chrysocolla ball.

There is a tuft of white-ish crystals beneath one of the azurite crystals that may be different than the other acicular crystals, of which most have formed singly.


I realize the POTD is selected for many reasons, but it seems that qualifying pictures should have more complete descriptions than this. It happens often. It is a very nice photo, visibly interesting to be sure, and maybe that is reason enough to use it, but when I look at the description, it is very unsatisfying to find so little information.

3rd Aug 2018 03:39 BSTDoug Daniels

Sure, each photo should have EVERYTHING identified. Wish I could do that with my specimens. Just ain't gonna happen. Maybe the specimen was purchased, and the major minerals identified. Maybe it was self collected, and the collector could only identify the important minerals, and maybe didn't realize there were some other, tiny thingees on the specimen. And those little thingees - may be hard for most of us collectors to identify. Obviously, there have been other POTDs with other things not identified. Happens. Do we really need to identify every little bit on our specimens? Identify every bit of matrix? I understand the wish to have this info (wish I could do it for my specimens), but again, just ain't gonna happen.

3rd Aug 2018 04:20 BSTKeith Wood

I'm not asking for everyone in the world to have everything in their specimens identified. I have unidentified minerals in some of my specimens. My thought is not toward the owner.


I am suggesting that maybe POTDs should have a higher standard.


No need for attitude. We are all friends here. Relax.

3rd Aug 2018 04:44 BSTDoug Daniels

Yeh, guess I had a bit of an attitude there.... I apologize. It's just that, as I understand it, the POTDs are kinda randomly selected by a manager, and are not worried about having every little thing identified (sorry - my attitude again). If they worried about everything you might see in the photo (maybe they saw it, maybe they didn't), we might have a lot less interesting specimens shown. And, if all things aren't identified, maybe could lead to discussions trying to identify those little hidden things. Always makes for interesting discussions.

3rd Aug 2018 14:49 BSTKeith Wood

Thanks, Doug. Apology accepted.


Yeah, I have read posts on how POTDs are selected: Not with a set of exacting criteria - must have this, must have that. We would not have many photos to choose from, as you say. But that is because the POTD has many shoes to fill. It is the frontispiece of the site, the first thing people see, and we want that to be interesting to draw people in. Yesterday's picture was well selected for that. But lots of us who use this site (and support it monetarily) know more about mineralogy and would like to see a little more.


Maybe one thing could be to run the POTD selection by an expert on that area and try to get some details filled in before fronting it. A bit more work for the managers, who already have plenty to do, and I'm not suggesting they do it every time. But sometimes it would be nice to have more complete information.

4th Aug 2018 05:16 BSTDoug Daniels

For the sake of argument..... Good ideas, but even having an "expert" look at the photo and try to identify the unidentifieds (did that make any sense?) is asking a lot. And, the photographer took a great photo. But did he/she really look closely to see what was captured in the image? With the questioned POTD, how closely did he look at it other than the azurite/chrysocolla? I have that problem with my own specimens. And when I look at the POTDs, I don't usually blow them the full size and scrutinize (so, general Joe likely won't either). And with the one in question, I didn't really see the things until I read your comments.... so, you have a sharp eye. Maybe have the description edited to say something like "with other unidentified minerals"? Problem is, that could be said of many. Just the idea that we don't want to scare members from posting photos, because the description they give isn't "perfect". Heck, if I posted photos (and, I don't have a camera), my descriptions might well not be as detailed as I would like (yes, I like to know what all is on my specimens, or what rock unit/formation it came from). Just posting these thoughts for those that look at the site, might want add photos (which may become a POTD), and such.

4th Aug 2018 05:47 BSTKeith Wood

This isn't a big deal to me. Everything you say is true and I agree. I'm not trying to be negative, critical, etc. The managers do a great job. It's probably more of a wish-list type desire to see more information. Might not be practical to get it very often. If I overstated that in my initial post, I'm sorry about that. Maybe just flipping through a few more photos sometimes to find the better characterized ones would help. Mainly expressing what I bet a few other people feel, is that full details are valued pretty highly by some on the site.

4th Aug 2018 06:40 BSTDoug Daniels

I think we are both on the same page. I'm gonna just shut up, and let it flow.

5th Aug 2018 11:35 BSTDebbie Woolf Manager

Oh how I wish, I wish, I wish, I hadn't been so tired at 1 am when picking this photo, obviously I missed the lack of description, slap my wrist!! I will try harder.


I do feel standards have improved. Looking back over the past six weeks there's only three photos without a description of some sort, we used to get that weekly :-) Sometimes it's a mistake other times it's not.


It's a privilege to chose POTD regardless of where in the world or my lack of knowledge, as long as it fits most of the criteria - I hope it stays that way.

5th Aug 2018 12:56 BSTKevin Hean

Debbie, Close your eyes and pretend you are in Namibia, :-)

5th Aug 2018 13:15 BSTDebbie Woolf Manager

Ha Ha Kevin, or SA, it's one of those wishes :-)

5th Aug 2018 15:05 BSTDon Swenson

How about this phraseology, "Today's picture of the day, a lovely specimen of azurite and chrysocolla, has more minerals in it that are not identified." Can anyone supply extra information for those who would like a more complete description? This would seem to be a respectful inquiry that might elicit information without ruffling any feathers (metaphorically speaking).

5th Aug 2018 15:36 BSTKeith Wood

I should have been gentler. Noted. Thank you everyone for your consideration. This is one of the best forums anywhere.


Don: Funny, I misread your post "metamorphicly speaking"

5th Aug 2018 19:38 BSTVolker Betz Expert

Much ado about nothing !


There was a time a picture was nothing, only words!


Lucky this times changed.


This is a good picture ! I does not need many words.

Except for those wo cannot read pictures, only words.


Volker
 
Mineral and/or Locality  
Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. Public Relations by Blytheweigh.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2019, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us Current server date and time: August 25, 2019 13:16:42
Go to top of page