Fly makers - your input please

[rtidd]

Hi all,
As most of you know I am trying to organize stuff on this site.
The archive pages are my next project in the metamorphosis of FAOL.

For you fly tying types I have a request / assignment.
It comes in 2 parts.

PART ONE...
When I catalog all the fly patterns I want to make the archive page a functional item that is searchable and usable.

Ergo..
I need categories that you would want to see that can be used to limit the view of flys so you can find what you are looking for..

Let's assume you are looking to tie a fly for a specific purpose.
FAOL may have 1, 2, 3, or 10 flies that fit the bill, but good luck finding them.
So what selection criteria should I have?

If it were up to me I would do stupid choices like.
* pretty blue flies
* ugly flies
* difficulty level - impossible
* looks like a worm to me..

Since that's about useless... WHAT DO YOU THINK should be the categories?
Keep in mind... PART 2 will be to get a panel of volunteers to actually go through EVERY FOTW and select which categories each one qualifies for.

Thanks.
--Ron--

[Panman]

Go to www.westfly.com & click on "Fly Patterns". This may give you some good ideas.

Thanks, Tim

[rtidd]

Regarding the link..
While the pull down selections are nice, from a beginner standpoint it doesn't meet FAOL design criteria.

And as such I submit a category for your consideration.
Difficulty Level: (With 4 choices)

1. Beginner
2. Easy
3. Experienced
4. Expert

And another possible..
Fly Type: (with 2 choices)

1. Wet fly
2. Dry fly

I'm trying to avoid (by request) fly good for rainbow trout, vs .. vs...
It would be nice to have an interface that shows a scrolling list of thumbnail pics for instance. and the list narrows as you select criteria that is .. shall we say less subjective ..

Then again.. I have no clue, this is YOUR resource people. How do you want to narrow your search when looking for a fly to tie?

In short assume you are a beginner as well as a veteran fly tier. You want to tie a fly to go for fish X. Think of a couple scenarios. Then if I was the keeper of patterns, you would tell me you want a pattern for a fly that ... and ... and ... replacing the ... with the criteria you need. In the end I would then tell you that I have say 3 flies that meet your requirements. THAT is what I envision. If that can be done with your help that is.

[Rex S]

Ron,
I appreciate your efforts to improve the site. Sorting fly patterns is a challenging task, but very helpful. I love FAOL, but the search function does need help.

One way to sort fly patterns could be with category/tags, like blog posts.

Here are some ideas:

Difficulty:
-Easy
-Moderate
-Advanced

Fly Type:
-Dry
-Nymph
-Streamer
-Terrestrial
-Emerger
-Soft Hackle
-Classic Wet Fly
-Salmon Fly

Target Species:
-Trout
-Panfish
-Warm Water
-Steelhead
-Salt Water

Style:
-Attractor
-Caddis
-Mayfly
-BWO
-Stonefly
-Terrestrial

Depending on whether you are a "lumper" or "splitter" you could have more or fewer categories or subcategories. And of course the interface method is a programmin question, but needs to be intuitive and easy to use.

Good luck with your project and thanks again.
Rex

[JohnScott]

Ron -

I suggest three main sections for cold water, warm water, and saltwater.

Within each section I suggest separate categories for dry flies, wet flys, nymphs, and streamers. Another separate section on terrestrials is optional. List the flies alphabetically within each category, and some flies will belong in two of the main sections, not likely all three.

If the search function will handle it, search could be done, e.g., on main section ( cold water ), category ( dry flies ), and fly name ( parachute adams ).

John

[EdD]

John, the problem with separating flies into warm water and cold water categories is that so many flies work very well in either environment.


All, perhaps categories with sub-categories would work:

Dry:
English
Catskill
Variants (wingless)
Caddis
Cripples
Midges
Roy Christie
etc...

Wets:
Classic, winged
Traditional soft hackles/spiders
Wet emergers
etc...


Thanks,
Ed

[quivira kid]

Fly Type:
-Dry
-Nymph
-Streamer
-Terrestrial
-Emerger
-Soft Hackle
-Classic Wet Fly
-Salmon Fly

I like this idea best, and would add a Saltwater/Warm Water category.
Species-specific classification doesn't make sense to me because I have caught trout on a Crappie Candy and bluegills on classic wet flies.

[rtidd]

ITS ALL GOOD GUYS..
I'll be pulling from a database for this.
Ergo each fly will be marked to all areas it fits.
The DB will eliminate duplicates, and make the search MUCH more intuitive/flexible.

So if fly #1234 works in Fresh AND Salt water, is a Salmon Fly AND a nymph, and is EASY to tie that becomes a better search.

The user will be able to find the fly based off original FAOL publish date, name, author, and criteria we decide on. Or ANY combination of all of the above.

This will be a bit of work, but will be OH SO NICE when done.

Think along the lines of a computer mfg site.
You are looking for a computer amongst hundreds they sell,
You want it < 1000, it narrows the field..
You want an INTEL processor, it narrows the field..
You want a Core 2 Quad processor, it narrows the field..
and suddenly you only have 4 choices that meet your criteria...

[FISHN50]

How about a Listing by the fish they are tied to catch. Break that down to

surface & subsurface. You can add the species for trout flies ( Mayfly, Caddis

etc.) Add a separate section for Classic & realistic ties.

[oldfrat]

Ron, what you are seeing so far is the same as you'd see if inspected our fly boxes. You'd see them organized in many different ways.

Given what you've described as the search process you are building, it might work best if we started with Rex S's list and then build on it.

For example, I'd add salmon and large mouth bass to the species and midge to the style. I fish for trout in streams, though, so I don't know what warm and still water fishers would add.