Fly makers - your input please

[CaseyP]

am i the only person who searches for fly patterns simply by name? from FAOL threads and articles, friends, magazines, books, and so on, i find out the name of a fly i'd like to tie for some fishing i'd like to do. then i put that name into the search box over on the fly pages. sometimes (but not very often) i get a reply i can use.

so i Google the fly name, and look at three or four pages with recipes and pictures and choose one to tie. Simple!

no form filling out, no confusion over warm/cold water, panfish vs. trout, streamer vs. nymph, winter vs. summer. all i need is the name.

yep, call me a Luddite, but it works every time.

[Garic]

I often look for inspiration on what to tie, (CaseyP, I have never HEARD of some of your american flies, so the name search doesn't always help me, lol) so I think that a search by material would be very useful, duno if it would be possible, but categorising them by main material down to optional would be good.

[Normand]

ron,

i hope you realize that this is one big can of worms you opened up here.

from wikipedia (for whatever thats worth)

Fly pattern types

Historically, fly pattern types have evolved along with fly fishing itself and today there are generally recognized pattern types. However, none of them are absolute and there is much cross-over in patterns and pattern types. Typically the fly tyer will encounter patterns classified as: Dry Flies, Wet Flies, Soft Hackles, Emergers, Nymphs, Terrestrials, Bucktails and Streamers, Salmon (Atlantic) Flies, Steelhead and Salmon (Pacific) Flies, Bass Flies and Bugs, Poppers, Panfish Flies, Saltwater Flies, or Pike Flies. Even within these categories, there can be many sub-categories of imitative and non-imitative flies.

i would also suggest to make it as simple as possible.

please dont take this approach

http://www.flytyingforum.com/index.php?act=flyindex

[Clay]

Ron, like someone mentioned earlier, it's tough to say this is a carp fly or a bluegill or even a bass fly because other species will eat it. Yes, you can do dry, nymph etc. Check out these couple of sites:

http://www.charliesflyboxinc.com/flybox/index.cfm
http://www.flytyingworld.com/flyindex.shtml

They are both organized by fly pattern name. Many of us remember the name of the fly but just can't remember the pattern, so when we want the recipe we look it up by name. If I need a recipe, I hardly search under dry fly but rather Google a specific fly name.

Perhaps a combination of these two, dry flies, then alphabetically. Just another thought to confuse the issue. Good luck with the huge undertaking.

You're way too motivated.

[Normand]

i like what clay says about the fly type then the fly name

one page with "fly type" pull down menus that reveal the fly name similar to the charlies fly box pull down menu would be nice and simple

every single trout dry fly known to fly fishers are going to work for multiple species of fish. you just have to put the fly in the dominant species/type and eliminate all crossovers. it will just muck things up.

[Dave E]

I like the initial Rex S proposal, even though it contains a freshwater bias. Although it may be a little over the top for someone who isn't quite sure what they're looking for and how it may have been classified. When the term Salmon Fly is used, are we speaking of a fly for Atlantic Salmon, Pacific Salmon or an Insect?

From a personal standpoint, I'd be more comfortable with no difficulty level being assigned to any pattern. But rather a general statement on the menu page with a simple explanation that not all patterns are created equal.

I also see value in John Scott's idea " cold water, warm water, and saltwater ".

No matter what system you arrive at, not all flies will fit neatly into a category. Many will overlap, others simply will end up in obscurity due to being mis-categorized or not fitting into any existing category.
Here's another one, would Palolo worm, San Jaun worm and the V-tailed Worm patterns be found in one category ( worms ), or spread out over Saltwater, Freshwater / Cold and Freshwater / Warm?

Would we lump the Crayfish patterns together with Crab patterns? What about Freshwater Shrimp vs. Saltwater shrimp?
Or should Shrimp, Crabs, saltwater baitfish & marine worm patterns all be lumped together under a single Saltwater Category?

If so, then why would another category be broken down into:
-Attractor
-Caddis
-Mayfly
-BWO
-Stonefly
-Terrestrial

In the end a simplified three step system might be the easiest to maintain and search.

I don't envy the task.

Best, Dave

[Cold]

No matter what system you arrive at, not all flies will fit neatly into a category. Many will overlap, others simply will end up in obscurity due to being mis-categorized or not fitting into any existing category.
Here's another one, would Palolo worm, San Jaun worm and the V-tailed Worm patterns be found in one category ( worms ), or spread out over Saltwater, Freshwater / Cold and Freshwater / Warm?

That's where a tag system shines. Unlike a physical filing system, where each record can only be placed in one "folder", with a tag-based database, each "file", in this case, each pattern, can be part of multiple "folders", or in our case, classifiers. A San Juan worm is a worm, so it gets the "worm" tag. It catches trout, so it gets a "trout" tag. It's an easy tie, so it gets an "easy" tag. It catches panfish...you guessed it..."panfish" tag. Now when anyone does a search for any of these tags, the San Juan Worm gets returned as a result.

For more specific results, the interface could...should...be a series of drop-down parameter selections. This will prevent ridiculous input like "Listerine" from messing up search results. Vaguely similar to WestFly's system, the main pattern database page would simply have a drop-down menu for each parameter.

One menu would have "Type" as a parameter. It would have selections like: Dry, Wet, Nymph, Streamer, Egg

One menu would have "Species" as a parameter. It's selections would be: Trout, Salmon/Steelhead, LM Bass, SM Bass, Panfish, Tarpon, Permit, Bonefish, etc.

Another, "Water", would include: coldwater, warmwater, stillwater, saltwater.

A difficulty variable should probably be either a brutally simple "Easy, Medium, Hard" scale, or a 1-10 difficulty scale. This one would be trickier to input, but something like "X or below" might be a good way to do it.

As a later addition, you might add a material selector database. Each pattern's list of materials would become tags, and a main-page list with check-boxes would define your parameters.

Lets say I want to tie an easy nymph using only materials I have on hand.

I set my parameters to "Nymph", "trout", "coldwater", and "easy".

I check boxes beside: nymph dubbing, ribbing wire, peacock herl, pheasant tail feather, biots, hares mask, and beads.

I click "search".

Among the returned results (that match all my criteria), I should see hare's ear, pheasant tail, and prince nymph, as these flies match all my parameters and fit within my materials I have on hand.

[Normand]

Would we lump the Crayfish patterns together with Crab patterns? What about Freshwater Shrimp vs. Saltwater shrimp?
Or should Shrimp, Crabs, saltwater baitfish & marine worm patterns all be lumped together under a single Saltwater Category?

Best, Dave

in my opinion

crayfish for the most part is a bass pattern.

a freshwater shrimp/scud is a nymph pattern

shrimp, crab, saltwater baitfish, marine worms are saltwater flies

like you said "i dont envy the task"!

a simple alphbetical listing is looking better and better and may be the easiet to pull off!

[Rex S]

Ron,
Although I know next to nothing about programming, I can guess that the job is a lot easier if you get your perameters nailed down before you start. So it helps to get a lot of opinions and ideas. My earlier post was not meant to be complete by any means, just a starting point for discussion.

I still favor the tags idea. People are used to using tags on blogs, they are intuitive, and choosing from a list is easier than trying to guess how a fly is categorized.

Maybe from a programmers point of view, a tag is no different from a category. If so, excuse my ignorance.

Personally, I have Googled either the fly name, or something like "favorite emerger" to get ideas.

Any way we can help, just let us know.
Rex

[Dave E]

Cold,
This sounds wonderful.

So this system will be able to decide between what you've listed ( ribbing wire ) and the gold tinsel or copper wire that may be listed in the materials list. It knows that you have silver 1/8" beads, while the pattern calls for another size and color bead. Wouldn't you have to list what color dubbing, hare's mask, pheasant tail feather and biots you have on hand? If so, the list of returns would get short fast, possibly turning up nothing.
Or is someone going to have to go through every pattern and somehow list all the possible variables and substitutions.

If it's an easy pattern, then could we say that a beginner might be searching for it and as a beginner he or she might not be all that knowledgeable about the possible substitutions. Therefore the information they are able to input into the search isn't all encompassing?
As many retail sites do, could or would the system be able to produce a list of " close, but no cigar " matches. For instance, you listed ribbing wire and a Hare's Ear Nymph appears, but could or would it also list a G.R.H.E. even though you never told it you had gold tinsel? Does the system understand subtle differences?

Hey Norm,
I'd agree on the Crayfish thing, if I didn't live at the base of the Sierra range, where Crayfish and Trout are pretty common foes.
B.T.W. Will it be Crayfish, Crawfish, Crawdads or what's for Dinner Tonight? Which word will turn up in a search?

Thanks guys, Dave