Reimagining Plant Judging

[orchidsarefun]

Originally Posted by Leafmite

I think it is sad what judging is doing to species orchids. We now have species orchids that look nothing like their ancestors but, instead, some generic ideal. Many orchids have fragrance to attract pollinators and when you take that away, that orchid could never survive in its native habitat. When a species is so altered, how can we even say that it is the same? When a species no longer grows in its natural habitat, we often hear that it is quite common in 'captivity' so it is safe. But, if it is no longer like the wild orchid, isn't the species truly lost forever?

For a while (as some might know), I was completely obsessed with species Angraecums as they were absolutely beautiful in their untouched forms. Now, they, too, are being altered. It greatly dampened my enthusiasm for them. I no longer felt I was preserving something special.

I have mentioned it before but I am not a big fan of the way flowers, plants and orchids are judged in the US. I hope that they never judge the flowers of fruit trees! Good-bye fragrant spring flowers that attract pollinators and goodbye edible fruit! Already they have altered some herbs, like lavender and bee balm. I hope they never touch wormwood (Artemisia absinthium) as I really love the silvery-green, fragrant leaves and the way that no insect ever touches it....

Roses, throughout history, have always been most famous for their fragrance. Now, most of the new varieties of tea and floribunda roses have no fragrance or very faint fragrance. It is not just roses. Carnations are now sold that do not have that wonderful spicy scent.

We are losing what makes all of these plants and flowers special solely based on the opinions of 'experts.' Why have we decided not to value plants for what makes them unique? Why must they all be forced to conform to what some panel has judged to be this ideal? Why can we not value the qualities for which these plants have always been famous? Where will it end?

I agree wholeheartedly ! I recently was at a presentation on species orchids in the wild and the presenter kept commenting that the wild blooms would never win an award. Judges basically judge against the previously awarded plant - by that I mean that they automatically refer to past awards and then compare to the specimen to be judged............and its not relevant if there has been genetic modification ( as in chemicals treatment ) or if the specimen is unlike the original species in material respects. More blooms, check......bigger blooms, check.....better colouring than the previous awarded, check - and so on. I wonder if this makes me a purist as this judging tendency is not confined to plants - you can see it in cats, dogs etc.
I suppose the bottom line is when is a species is still a species or is in name only good enough these days ? Maybe there should be a category for plants that are closest to the original species in blooms and size. Already I have heard and read comments that a species x was more fragrant, smaller, healthier in the "old days".
Species only collectors make me smile because little do they know that many of the species they have are really in name only and they are collecting "hybridized" species.

[Leafmite]

With your plan, the rich or friends of the rich would always dominate the field! Most of those in the field of developing new hybrids are not rich so why would they even want to try?

orchidsarefun, that is exactly what I mean. We have hybrids so why mess with the species orchids? Why make them look like hybrids? It is rather sad when some of the species look so much like hybrids now that people cannot be certain whether they are the species or not. :|

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

Maybe you missed it. The experts themselves did not donate even a penny to your orchid. The experts themselves felt that your achievement was worthless.

I just checked out the Guinness World Records facebook page. Some guy was recognized for having the largest kidney. Did he achieve something? I guess. But how important is his achievement? How much of your money is it worth? It's certainly not worth any of my money.

It's a different story if some guy pulls all my weeds. This achievement would definitely be worth some of my money. If some other guy invents a robot that can pull all of my weeds, then this achievement would be worth even more of my money.

The relevance of an achievement can only be determined/revealed by sacrifice. If expert judges aren't willing to even spend a penny on your orchid that they awarded, then clearly they perceive that the achievement is entirely irrelevant.

[epiphyte78]

Originally Posted by jcec1

In this hypothetical situation, where the judges give me a blue ribbon, but then don't give me any money, then I would be sceptical of their judgment- if money is the true arbiter of achievement.
So, in this system if my Cattleya makes $200 in one show and then the next day it makes $2 at another show, has it achieved less?

There are a few things that the Bible gets really right. For example, don't cast your pearls before swine. If you're going to take the time and make the effort to take your orchid to shows, then take it to the shows where it will be the most appreciated.

Originally Posted by jcec1

Would my orchid be a better orchid, if a billionaire judge give me a thousand dollars or a poor one give me ten cents?

The story of the Widow's Mite is another example of something that the Bible gets really right. The poor judge would be making a bigger sacrifice than the rich judge. Therefore, the poor judge would be giving your orchid a higher grade than the rich judge.

But my argument really is not that we should only let one person judge all the orchids. My argument is that larger markets are always better judges than smaller markets. In the multitude of counselors there is safety. This is a third thing that the Bible gets really right.

J.K. Rowling's book was rejected by numerous publishers. Each publisher was the equivalent of a really small market. It should be really clear that really small markets are very likely to super fail to recognize the true social value of things. Rowling kept trying to sell her book to publishers until one of them had a somewhat more correct inkling of the book's social value. When it was first published, a relatively larger market judged the book. I think it was first only available in the UK? Enough people purchased it that it was offered to a much larger market. Rowling became a millionaire because so many people, most of whom were not millionaires, gave her their money.

The judgement of larger markets is always more reliable and trustworthy than the judgement of smaller markets. A small group of expert judges is a really small, and really terrible market. They aren't even spending their money.

---------- Post added at 03:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Leafmite

With your plan, the rich or friends of the rich would always dominate the field! Most of those in the field of developing new hybrids are not rich so why would they even want to try?

Once J.K. Rowling's book first hit the market, how long did it take to go from scarce to abundant?

As far as I know, this is the first time that L. anceps x E. vitellina has been offered for sale on eBay. How long will it take to go from scarce to abundant?

The time it takes for something to go from scarce to abundant largely depends on the amount of money that's spent on it. The more money that's spent on it, the more quickly it will be abundant.

One issue is that it's far easier, cheaper and faster to make perfect copies of Rowling's book than the vitellina cross. So the supply of her book more quickly responded to demand than the supply of the orchid can.

We can help compensate for this by spending more money on the orchid. If I saw it at a show, even if it wasn't in bloom I'd definitely be happy to earmark a decent donation to it. Clearly I wouldn't be spending my money to buy the orchid. Instead, I would be spending my money to let all the vendors know that I truly want to buy this orchid. The more money that people donated to this orchid, the louder and stronger the message that we would send to vendors, the more quickly the orchid would become abundant.

Sure I can call Sunset Valley Orchids and tell Fred Clarke that I really want to buy anceps x vitellina. I can even prove this to him by donating $20 bucks to his nursery. But it doesn't have the same impact if...

1. only he sees my interest
2. he only sees my interest

If we could earmark our donations to this cross at a show, then all the vendors would see all our interest in it. When all the vendors get the memo, it increases the chances that the orchid will become abundant sooner rather than later.

[Scadoxus]

jcec1, I would hope that when I enter a plant show my friends, whether their pockets be deep or shallow, spend to reflect their true valuation of the plants in the show. Yes, it is possible for a single person to earmark a significant amount to one plant, but imagine the message that it sends to the exhibitor, judges, and attendees. The fifty people you mentioned who spent $1 on the plant would perhaps reevaluate the true value of their donation. Was it only worth $1? How might the total amount have looked if there was an honest donation?

When I go to the market, the price of every item is weighed before leaving the shelf. My valuation of a New York steak is that is far superior to that of Rib Eye. So when I have to make the occasional decision about steak consumption, I consider that $20 per steak for the NY reflects my true valuation of the quality and and taste. The same should be true when it comes to letting our dollars help us decide which plant in a show matches our true preference.

[isurus79]

Epiphyte78 never ceases to amaze me with the number of bizarre and completely unrealistic schemes to alter the orchid world.

[epiphyte78]

Originally Posted by isurus79

Epiphyte78 never ceases to amaze me with the number of bizarre and completely unrealistic schemes to alter the orchid world.

What's bizarre/unrealistic about this "scheme"?

Next month the Epiphyte Society of Southern California (ESSC) is going to test this idea out at a meeting. Each member will have the opportunity to bring their favorite thing to the meeting. It doesn't have to be an epiphyte, it doesn't even have to be a plant or related to plants. It could be anything that a member feels deserves more attention.

Each member will have the opportunity to use their dollars to determine the amount of attention that each entry deserves. The winners will receive prizes such as plants and/or plant books. All the money will be used to promote a webpage that displays all the entries sorted by importance.

Society members will essentially pool their money to judge and promote their favorite things. It's crowdfunded advertising.

Care to make any predictions?

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

What's bizarre/unrealistic about this "scheme"?

Next month the Epiphyte Society of Southern California (ESSC) is going to test this idea out at a meeting. Each member will have the opportunity to bring their favorite thing to the meeting. It doesn't have to be an epiphyte, it doesn't even have to be a plant or related to plants. It could be anything that a member feels deserves more attention.

Each member will have the opportunity to use their dollars to determine the amount of attention that each entry deserves. The winners will receive prizes such as plants and/or plant books. All the money will be used to promote a webpage that displays all the entries sorted by importance.

Society members will essentially pool their money to judge and promote their favorite things. It's crowdfunded advertising.

Care to make any predictions?

Here's a prediction. After the novelty wears off it will be forgotten.

[Orchid Whisperer]

Hey, Epiphyte Society of Southern California Group, I read they are up to 2 members now!!

ESSC.jpg

[epiphyte78]

Orchid Whisperer, why'd you search for the ESSC?

The first search result is the Facebook page which has 83 Likes. Why does the ESSC page have 83 Likes while the ESSC group only has 2 members? Maybe because I created the group less than 2 weeks ago and haven't sent out a notice.

The OSSC page, which I also created, has 2,368 Likes. But its group has 0 members. Maybe because I haven't created one yet.

Pages and groups are different. With pages it's one or two people who decide which content to share. But with groups... each member can decide which content to share. FB pages are top down, FB groups are bottom up.

The OB is obviously more like a FB group than a FB page. Yet, as far as I can tell, the OB has a FB page, but it doesn't have a FB group.

A typical plant society meeting consists of some members bringing in plants to show, a presentation and a raffle table.

Sometimes the presentations are worth it. Othertimes they are incredibly boring. I sit there wishing that I could spend the time picking the brains of the members.

Meetings generally feel more like FB pages than groups. There's some time for interaction, but not nearly enough.

The ESSC meeting next month is going to be a lot more like a FB group. There won't be a presentation. Instead, each member will bring in one of their favorite things for all the other members to discuss and judge. An entry can be a member's favorite orchid... or their favorite OB thread... or their favorite cat video.

Nearly every member who will attend the ESSC meeting is a member of one or more other societies. One member of the ESSC is a member of more than a dozen local societies. So pretty much all of us will be able to compare the nontraditional ESSC meeting with traditional meetings. I'm guessing that I'll prefer the ESSC meeting. What happens if the other members also prefer the ESSC meeting?

If other members prefer the ESSC meeting, then they'll attend more of them. The ESSC will compete members away from other societies. The other societies will either adapt or go extinct.

[orchidsarefun]

Its really irritating when you can predict the postings of other members...to other members. Constant bickering and attempts at 'gotcha' postings do nothing to raise discourse. If you don't like a posting, try the mythical high road and resist replying. In the grand scheme of things, that too can be satisfying.