1 Reply by alantb

  • alantb
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 30-03-2009
  • Posts: 8

Re: Is Recorder 6 any better than the old versions?

I am a Recorder of Fungi in Yorkshire, inputting about 2 or 3 thousand records a year which end up in the National records. About 15 years ago I devised my own system based on Lotus Approach - this program is now becoming obsolete, not because it isn't any good, but because Microsoft Vista won't support it. Unfortunately, the fields that are used recording fungi are not compatible with Recorder 2 and I have no way to alter this. The advantage of Lotus Approach is that it is completely flexible - one can add fields, remove or rename them them, alter length etc. I did have some conversations with Recorder developers at one time but nothing happened......... Is Recorder 6 still as fixed as it used to be? Is there any prospect of more adaptability to users requests?

2 Reply by johnvanbreda

  • johnvanbreda
  • Administrator
  • Offline
  • From: UK
  • Registered: 27-04-2006
  • Posts: 1,237

Re: Is Recorder 6 any better than the old versions?

Hi Alan

Recorder does support extension of the data model using addins, though that requires code to be written, or by using flexible fields such as measurements. Perhaps you could describe some of the fields that you need which are/were not supported so we can comment on the best approach and the suitability of Recorder 6?

Best Wishes

John van Breda
Biodiverse IT

johnvanbreda's Website

3 Reply by Lynn Heeley

  • Lynn Heeley
  • Administrator
  • Offline
  • Registered: 03-07-2008
  • Posts: 345

Re: Is Recorder 6 any better than the old versions?

Hi Alan,

As John has said there are ways to adapt core Recorder to specific needs particularly through addins. If requirements are of general use to the user community it is possible to add them to the core package for wider use. Having said this where requirements are very specific it is preferable to develop something separate to fulfil the need rather than further complicating an already complex package for a minority. It is also possible (with the required technical skill) to tailor recording cards and xml reports to your specific needs. As John as said it would be useful to gather a bit more detail on your requirements (eg the fields you need).

Best Wishes,
Lynn

4 Reply by alantb

  • alantb
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 30-03-2009
  • Posts: 8

Re: Is Recorder 6 any better than the old versions?

I'll come back with a detailed list. It's the one recommended by the British Mycological Society, but several fields are not needed for practical purposes out here in the sticks.....

Thank you for your replies
Alan

5 Reply by charlesroper

  • charlesroper
  • charlesroper
  • Digital Development Manager
  • Offline
  • From: Field Studies Council
  • Registered: 26-03-2006
  • Posts: 906

Re: Is Recorder 6 any better than the old versions?

Alan,

Microsoft Access is similar to Lotus Approach in that it is a relational database application designed with the "end user" in mind (as opposed to software and database developers) and will thus allow you to setup databases to your precise requirements. But if you need to send data to the national recording scheme, and if they don't have the same database as you, how will they integrate your records into the national database?

A couple of questions for you:

1. What database does the national scheme use?

2. What are the custom fields you require that weren't present in Recorder 2?

Charles Roper
Digital Development Manager | Field Studies Council
http://www.field-studies-council.org | https://twitter.com/charlesroper | https://twitter.com/fsc_digital

charlesroper's Website

6 Reply by alantb (edited by alantb 11-08-2009 12:18:42)

  • alantb
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 30-03-2009
  • Posts: 8

Re: Is Recorder 6 any better than the old versions?

Hello Charles:
I send data to the BMS (who use an Access system) as a comma-separated-value txt file and have done so for years. I have experimented a bit with Access but I find that it is far too clunky to use, non-intuitive, deliberately trying to force the user into its own conceived idea of what he/she wants and full of ridiculous jargon (imagine a 'query' to put data IN, how daft can one get?) and anyhow I only have one lifetime. When I first discovered Recorder I thought that it would be the answer but, as I said, there was no space to input all the fields used by the BMS, so I stayed with my own system.
The only problem I have is that if I want to create maps I have to output data into another program, which is a bit messy - but I can do it.
For what it is worth, I have been trying to get MapMate round to my way of thinking with distinct non-interest.
I'll let you know the precise details later.
Thanks for your reply, Alan

7 Reply by alantb (edited by alantb 11-08-2009 21:05:29)

  • alantb
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 30-03-2009
  • Posts: 8

Re: Is Recorder 6 any better than the old versions?

Charles, John, Lynn; herewith the 'essential' fields which I record. The full list contains 39 fields but some of these are for the use of the National co-ordinator and I can manage with the following.(which I have separated by a colon:) These are not necessarily in this order. Field lengths follow each field name
Name of fungus:(100) Current Name:(100) Associated Organism:(50) Substrate:(50) Ecosystem:(50) NCC Ecosystem code:(10) Altitude:(4) Day:(2) Month:(2) Year:(4) Grid Reference:(8) Vice-County:(2) Name of Site:(50) Collector's Name:(50) Identifier:(50) Confirmer:(50) Doubtful Record Indicator:(1) Collectors Reference Number:(10) Notes : (250)
I feel that I have to point out (again...) that recording fungi is not like recording birds or mammals or flowers.  It is now recognised that a very great number of fungi have direct attachments to the nearby vegetation. It is therefore an absolute requirement that we record not just general details of a site but also as precisely as we can the other living entities which may be associated with the particular fungus.There is a rationale behind all these fields, which I won't bore you with, but if Recorder can't cope then I can't use it.
Another point is that the current names of fungi are often subject to change in the light of new discoveries and DNA analysis (for instance) but the previous name will still be valid and often field recorders will use the 'old' name because that is what they are used to. In the National Database (FRDBI) one will often see "...recorded as ...." in an entry, where the co-ordinator has substituted the current name for that which is recorded. It is therefore necessary for any database to be flexible enough to cope with  these 'old' names.

Thank you for your patience in reading this. If I could have made it shorter I would have.....

Best Wishes, Alan

8 Reply by Janet Simkin

  • Janet Simkin
  • Janet Simkin
  • Veteran
  • Offline
  • From: Northumberland
  • Registered: 10-05-2006
  • Posts: 262

Re: Is Recorder 6 any better than the old versions?

Hi Alan,

Your requirements are very similar to ours for recording lichens and we now use Recorder 6 for all our data. It took a few years to get it set up the way we wanted it but we got there eventually, and the only software development required was a suite of new xml reports and a couple of batch updates, which Mike Wideili helped us with.

All our input to R6 is through spreadsheets, which automatically translate old names to new so that the recorders can use whichever generation of names they are comfortable with. The fields imported include location, grid ref, vice county, recorder(s), date(s), site/visit comments, species, substrate, small scale habitat, abundance, comments, collector, herbarium, herbarium collection number, and determiner. Once the record is in the system we add additional information to the site record and survey event as needed, and of course any additional determination history or collection details. For us the substrate is at the level of corticolous, saxicolous, terricolous, lignicolous etc. and the more detailed information on rock type or associated species and position is held in multiple measurement codes, what we call the small scale habitat codes.

If this is of any interest do get in touch with me off forum and I will send you further details.

Janet

Janet Simkin
British Lichen Society

Janet Simkin's Website

9 Reply by alantb

  • alantb
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 30-03-2009
  • Posts: 8

Re: Is Recorder 6 any better than the old versions?

Thank You Janet; that's the only positive message I've ever  had.
I'll have a think and come back to you.

Best Wishes, Alan

10 Reply by johnvanbreda

  • johnvanbreda
  • Administrator
  • Offline
  • From: UK
  • Registered: 27-04-2006
  • Posts: 1,237

Re: Is Recorder 6 any better than the old versions?

Hi Alan

Looking through your list of attributes, there are places to store all of them in Recorder 6 although the default interface may not be very streamlined to your needs. The only issue is that the data entry screens expect you to use current names rather than previous ones when recording, although the old names remain available for reporting. However, if Janet has a data entry interface in spreadsheets which cope with this problem, that is likely to be a very good approach to producing a fast and easy to use data entry solution.

Good luck, we'd be interested to know how you get on.

Best Wishes

John van Breda
Biodiverse IT

johnvanbreda's Website

11 Reply by Lynn Heeley

  • Lynn Heeley
  • Administrator
  • Offline
  • Registered: 03-07-2008
  • Posts: 345

Re: Is Recorder 6 any better than the old versions?

Hi Alan,

You mention in your requirements 'Ecosystem' - is this effectively a habitat list of sorts specific to fungi recording? If so and you decided to use Recorder we could include the list in the habitats dictionary for you.
If you have any further queries don't hesitate to ask.

Best Wishes,
Lynn

12 Reply by alantb

  • alantb
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 30-03-2009
  • Posts: 8

Re: Is Recorder 6 any better than the old versions?

Hello Lynn;
Thank you for your reply.
The 'Ecosystem' is a local description of the site which supplements the the Nature Conservancy Habitat type. (eg 'Lane by Conifer plantation', 'urban garden', 'scattered trees by road' etc. etc.) - the idea being to give some 'meat' to the bald NCC code. It is not a formal field from a list. I suppose one could interpret it as 'Recorders Remarks About The Site, or some such phrase.
When I find my copy of Recorder 2 and re-install it I'll come back to you. . . .
Best Wishes, Alan

13 Reply by alantb

  • alantb
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 30-03-2009
  • Posts: 8

Re: Is Recorder 6 any better than the old versions?

Dear John;

Here we have the problem! If I want to change over to Recorder I have about 35,000 records to download into it. I do not have the time to go over each and every record for parts that don't fit. Particularly, if I have a record which uses an 'old' name, I need that translated into the most up-to-date one BUT I need to retain the original name [i]because that will be the name in the records of the person who sent in the record[/i]  - hence the two fields 'Name of Fungus' for the recorded name and 'Current Name' for the most recent thoughts in the taxonomy.
I can no doubt shuffle the field order about to suit Recorder, though I would like the facility to choose my own field names but (see above para...).
Also I forgot to mention a field that I use that the BMS have abandoned, which is a code for the Order of the fungus (e. g 'Agaricales', 'Boletales', 'Uredinales' &c &c.). This (the code) is not needed for the National Database and is possibly rather unscientific but is very handy for field recorders when we want to pick out how many of a particular type are recorded in a particular area without selecting a group of names. The Order name itself (and a lot of other data) comes with the fungus name  from the British Checklist, but these data keep changing - of course.

As per my previous post, I'll be back when I find my copy of Recorder 2

Regards, Alan