It looks like a Sturgeon (Acipenser sturio), maybe a young one?
Pogge,no doubts about it see http://www.marinespecies.org/photogallery.php?album=759&pic=2734 as compared with the other UK Agonid Leptagonus decagonus http://www.marinespecies.org/photogallery.php?album=759&pic=39114
I've followed this thread's progress with interest as another typical example of what happens to a question that's "assumed answered" [see comment in http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/34399 ]. After Florin's speculative answer & Mr_Jolly's correct one it remained "not answered" till probably 2013 when all such questions older than about 4th of may in Identification have been dumped into "assumed answered", see eg the Sahara concretion http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/thread/9789 & (approximately) http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/community/identification?view=all#/?page=16 currently (last page being 63 & 16=63-47). [In all the pages below this there are no questions "not answered"].
Anyway after divemouse's agreement it came to the top of the list as "assumed answered" & got no attention from either members or staff (not even Florin!); & I've just repeated the experiment with the same result.
The same has happened to me every time, eg gillie's dragonfly http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/10614 ,which I pointed out to Mike Hardman in bk-2020's thread http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/29636 (in which thread Florin participated) & he luckily agreed it, so on 3rd jun it was top of the ID list (for the 3rd time) as "assumed answered", yet amazingly got no response , despite every possible qualification to be marked by staff as answered:- 3 agreements including Mike Hardman, & staff member Tipula; the internet links showed it's a clearcut case, & the many ID's in Ispot show it's common, & it's UK not exotic.
It'd be nice to know if BigFish agreed any of the ID's (or agrees now if he hasn't given up), but the lack of response from questioners is also common (presumably they've given up). So for Tonysims Capetown spider, http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/thread/9830 an "assumed a'd" that had zero answers, having found an answer I posted it as my own question http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/32343 ,& likewise http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/32343 for Dendro's saxifrage saxifrage http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/32652 , & neither of these 2 have commmented.
Thanks for the updates and sorry we don't have the time to work on the Forum as much as we wish. Here are the threads you mention:
- Malawi insects - marked as 'assumed answered' because it has received 9 replies, some of which may be correct. I don't have the expertise to check that, so let's leave it to the enquirer to marking one of them as correct.
- Sahara stone - marked as 'assumed answered' because old and quite hopeless. Can still be marked as 'answered' if the enquirer receives a correct answer. Fell free to reply to him, as the thread is not locked.
- Starfish confusion - Libelulla depressa - 'answered'.
- Dragonfly/damselfly - Libelulla depressa - 'answered'.
- Bug from Cape Town - spider identified, 'answered'.
- Another bug from capetown - 'answered' today.
- Icelandic saxifrage - 'answered'.
- strange fish (this thread) - I was clearly wrong about it being a sturgeon and I think it most likely to be what you and Mr Jolly say it is, so I will mark his answer as 'correct', and hope you are right. I hoped the owner would mark it as 'correct' if satisfied with the reply.
Please remember that threads marked as 'assumed answered' are still open. Everyone can post replies, and the owner can always mark one of those as 'correct', thus changing the status of the thread to 'answered'.
We do not have the time and sometimes the expertise to check if all the replies are correct. Sometimes it's wiser to mark them as 'assumed answered' than haste to mark a wrong reply as 'correct'. There may be wrong answers marked as 'correct' by the owner, but we can't check everything.
I see you've missed virtually every point, Florin. But on the Sahara concretion, I wasn't looking for an answer & only mentioned it as a marker, as all questions that were marked as "not answered" in the 47 pages below it were dumped into "assumed answered". So obviously it's very unlikely anyone will notice that it's not actually been answered.However it has been given an answer at http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/28625.
nor was I looking for the Malawi insects to be agreed, & you've obviously not read it as i pointed out that I'd seen the thread marked as "assumed answered" even before anyone had answered it, & luckily EllieComley admitted he'd accidently pressed it otherwise you probably wouldn't believe me. so I guess I'd better repeat what I said there
[ On the 'assumed answered' I tried it with a dummy question & it can't be undone. There didn't used to be any assumed answers & I understand it came about due to an unforseen (& apparently unalterable) consequence of the computer program,that the large number of unaswered questions generated 100s of email alerts to the museum ID team. Hovever I'd have thought it could easily be designed (or redesigned) so that either the questioner could undo the step, or was unable to take it till they'd got at least 1 answer. But anyway I can see no justification whatever for giving the 'assumed' the same symbol in the list as the 'answered' instead of a new symbol, so members keen on answering questions can readily find the questions needing answers; especially as staff are always pointing out they've not time to answer them themselves.
So with the new system staff could mark all the older unanswereds as assumed answered, even if they'd had no answers.]
So what's this business about 9 answers. Is it true & if so for how long, as I'm sure there are questions with more than 9 that aren't 'assumed answered' eg http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/thread/10831
Those 4 other cases (starfish to saxifrage), as you should well know, weren't marked as answered by the questioners ,Nor by staff noticing them in, eg , the identification lists, & then marking them, but only by my posting questions pointing to them, or pointing them out in http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/thread/10264 whereupon either you or Bombuslocorum answered them. And in none of these cases has there been any response by the enquirer to my ID or the marking. And the same 2 conditions apply to http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/25699 (Cyanea capillata), http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/25735 =common cuttlefish ,http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/25263 =zanzibar slug, & http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/21008 (Beautiful sea anemones), & starfish http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/thread/2777 i.e.9 cases no enquirer response
So,having missed every point you have now ignored every point!
1) I need to know you've actually read http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/34399 through & the rubbish about 9 answers was rubbish.
2) That you agree that fact that none the 9 solved cases above elicited any response from their questioners shows they'd be very unlikely to have marked them as answered (which is true of this thread also)
3) You actually understand the above statement (here repeated), & agree with it
"I can see no justification whatever for giving the 'assumed' the same symbol in the list as the 'answered' instead of a new symbol, so members keen on answering questions can readily find the questions needing answers; especially as staff are always pointing out they've not time to answer them themselves."
I've pointed this out several times & you've steadfastly ignored it.But amaybe I can put it in terms even you can understand!
The LHS of the identification list has symbols indicating the type of question; there are 3 types of question but 2 types of symbol, ie they're supposed to show the type of question but they don't. So you cant see which questions are "assumed answered" ie unanswered, they're 'hidden in plain sight' ie camouflaged. Is that simple enough?
This makes it harder to find such unanswered questions & more importantly when someone does, & it comes to top of list, gtly lessens the chance of any member of looking at it (& supporting or refuting) & of the staff noticing it as something not marked as answered.Since you're always complaining of shortage of staff time you should be giving members every chance of finding the answers, or supporting the answers when found.
So in other words the "assumed answered" need their own symbols, which in computing terms is I'm sure a trivial thing to do (unless you've lost the computer documentation.
4) "help as best you can" by actually answering the questions
I'm not ignoring your points, but I just needed you to make them clearer so I can understand where exactly the problem is. I certainly don't use insults in my messages and I feel sorry you feel the need to insult me.
1. I'm not sure why you say that 'the rubbish about 9 answers was rubbish'. My point was that, seeing that the question has received 9 replies, I thought it was fair to mark it as 'assumed answered'. I wasn't sure that the answers were correct, so I didn't mark it as 'answered'.
2. As I said before, precisely because I don't think the owners will ever return to mark these old threads as 'answered', it's best for us to mark them as 'assumed answered'. This leaves the possibility open for anyone to come back to them later and contribute by answering.
3. Now I see what you mean about those symbols. I don't know what LHS stands for, but I see that the 'assumed answered' threads and the 'answered' ones have the same little icon on the left in the start page. This is a technical issue best discussed with the administrators. You say it is easy to change the settings, but it's not easy for me, as I'm not a computer expert. I really don't know how to do the changes, or I
would do them at once. You are right, these are confusing for anyone searching for unanswered questions.
What I can do for the moment, as a working compromise, is to stop marking unanswered questions (those with really no answers). For how long would you say it would be fair to leave them as they are?
Would it be OK in your opinion to keep marking as 'correct' those answers which owners ignore, but which I think are in fact correct? Would it be OK to mark as 'assumed answered' those threads where reasonable effort was made to offer an opinion or advice, and where messages were posted?
How would you manage this if you didn't have a way of changing the icons/symbols? Consider the number of email alerts you would receive (over 1200 a week at this stage, but growing steadlily).
4. I'm not sure I've answered your questions, but I tried. Just please don't be so angry with me, OK? I'm really trying to help.
All the best,
I'm sorry Florin, but I found it hard to believe you hadn't already understood my point about the symbols (or how you'd missed that point so often).
On the 'rubbish' ie Malawi question it seems you still haven't read http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/34399 properly, nor even the comment about it above in this thread (20th sep, 15:04) .So if you read the Malawi thread (which I'd noticed was "assumed answered even before it had had any answer) you'll see that I pointed this out in my 1st reply. In Ellie's 1st reply she admitted she'd accidentally clicked it, & "can't find out how to undo it". You'll also find MikeHardman agreed with my points about symbols etc, & has sent an email to the admins.Whatever you did, Elllie had done it already; but I can see no justification at all for marking it assumed when it's so recent, & as Ellie didn't want it, perhaps you should unmark it.
On 3 It's great to have some agreement at last (LHS=Lefthandside),but I'm worried as it sounds as if you hadn't noticed before, as if you rarely if ever use the identification lists. If when you're answering you only use email alerts & never use the identification etc lists that'd mean it's futile to answer any dumped threads as there's no chance you'll even see them let alone mark them as answered, & so my way (as in http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/32343 ) is the only way you'll get to see them!
On threads with no answer I agree they shouldn't be marked as assumed answered until the symbols are changed & provided that when someone does answer them you'll actually see them & so be able to mark them if correct.And agree on ones owners ignore. On the assumed answered that'd depend on what chance there is, when someone finds clinching evidence, of your seeing it so as to mark it correct.
It's clear that many questions fail to get marked as answered for many reasons,even when the questioner's happy with the answer,eg "Thanks so much,Thats utterly cool" at http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/30842 or http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/33750 (NB in this 2nd example the questioner's clicked "assumed answer"). Doubtless some dont see themselves qualified to judge, or think that it's bound to be marked "answered" by staff anyway (especially when they see the list of 6 people on the museum ID team.
NB when I looked at the list of 30 questioners in identification today (21st) 22 of them were beginners with 4 points or less, ie no experience of how the site works.
One way to Increase the chance of beginners marking questions as answered I believe is to make sure that stock questions (often asked, easily answered) already have good examples marked as answered (& preferably with endorsement by a staff member!). Answerers can then quote these.That's why I thought your failure to mark Gillies dragonfly thread http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/10614 as incomprehensible! Mike Hardman added his agreement to it on 3 jun & in the thread http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/29636 said he had (on 3 jun). You must have known he did as you answered that thread(29636) with 1 of your 'clear explanations' on 4 jun (and answered another q later on same day, 2 on the 6th & 1 on the 8th). On top of that I also pointed out in the same 4 jun thread the 2nd equally clear example of the same dragonfly at http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/25736 , & I'd pointed out both cases before (twice) yet both were ignored.
Given such a shortage of staff time surely best use should be made of the expertise of members.One way could be for a member to point out (say as a question) a clearcut & stock case as needing to be marked answered, or better a numbered list of clear examples of the species that need marking, & invite others to agree or comment. Staff could then judge from who agreed etc on the soundness of the cases.
As example, entering 'goose barnacle' in the search box, eg http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/community/search.jspa?peopleEnabled=true&userID=&containerType=&container=&spotlight=false&q=goose+barnacle* gives 6 examples, 4 of which are in fact clear examples of the common goose barnacle Lepas anatifera; but none are marked as such. (the best example's a discussion but was obviously meant as a question by Rosslewis, a beginner).NB In Collins' 1996 seashore guide the goose barnacles comprise a family, Lepadidae, with 2 other (rare) Lepas species & the Buoy barnacle.
the 5th http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/5296 ,is marked as answered ( as goose barnacle) , but it isn't even in the family Lepadidae but is a clear example of Pollicipes pollicipes. It's English name is given in WoRMS ( http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=106177 ) as Gooseneck barnacle ( & also in RSPB handbook of the Seashore P.149) Whilst Lepas anatifera is common goose barnacle http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=733346 . (& the WoRMS classification doesn't have them in even the same order :- Scalpelliformes as against Lepadiformes) .
The last is a clear example of a buoy barnacle