Fly makers - your input please

FAOL Community Fly Anglers Online
21

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.

22

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.

23

ron,

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

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

24

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. :mrgreen:

25

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.

26

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

27

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. :slight_smile:

28

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!

29

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

30

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

31

Ron, I would favor the general category sceme with tags as suggested and then a complete alphabetical listing by name, every fly has a name and the tag list shold allow one to pick out the fly they were looking for or pick one. Just my $.02 worth. I would also try to enlist Steven McGarthwaite’s assistance, his FOTW and other pdf files are great!:tieone:

32

Dave, that entirely depends on the strength of its coding. I’ve seen software that, depending on the input, can give you returns with descending match percentage. In terms of flies by material, this would mean that flies you have everything for would be first, then flies that you’d need 1 more material to tie…then 2 more…and so on.

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.

No. The system still needs a good design. For tying purposes, you would have general categories. “Wire” would cover all metal wire ribbing. Thin, heavy, gold, copper, black, etc. Also, all the truly minor variations would get lumped into an “over-pattern”. A pattern entry should be as generic as “Catskill Dry Fly”, with variations for BWOs, sulphurs, cahills, etc. listed as variations of that fly. For that fly’s materials, you’d have: dry fly dubbing, dry fly hackle, dry fly tailing.

Your dubbing for an Adams might be gray superfine, or it might be muskrat…either way, its dry fly dubbing and you’re tying an adams, so the specifics dont matter in the slightest. For tailing, you might use spade hackle fibers, or microfibbets, or moose mane…doesnt matter as long as you’ve got a tail.

The key to a good pattern database is not getting bogged down in the minutiae. There’s absolutely no sense at all in doubling your entire nymph collection to include beadheads as a seperate entry (or tripling it to add tungheads…or quadrupling it to add coneheads…you see how this can get out of hand). Likewise, you need to sit back an look objectively at your fly box and realize that switching estaz in for chenille gives you a variation, not a new pattern. When you start to do this, classification gets much easier.

The material-based search, though, would be an add-on later. With a tag-based system, it should be fairly easy to add material tags to the patterns, then simply work out the best interface for it. The primary objective is to get them classified by fly first.

I’m fairly opposed to a simple alphabetical sorting because lets face it…when you want a streamer to imitate a sculpin, you dont want to have to sort through hundreds of ridiculous (admit it, pattern names are ridiculous) and unrelated pattern names, hoping to find a few sculpins and missing a few in the process. Chances are, you’ll never click on ‘Sex Dungeon’. :stuck_out_tongue:

33

Hi Cold,

It still seems to me to be overly complicated for a patterns index. But it’s not my sandbox or checkbook.

I’ll reiterate, I don’t envy the task. I’ll add that I obviously don’t have the first clue as to what it’s going to take to perform this feat or the commitment it’s going to take to maintain it, yet it sounds daunting. To those of you who undertake it, I wish you the best of luck. Truly.

Dave

34

maybe with the “tag” system it will get cross referenced.

mud bug works for me! :slight_smile:

35

ROFL.
The comment about opening a can of worms seems just right
AND a bit humorous… getting flytossers involved in worms… LOL

Great ideas - each and every one of em.

The tag idea is great. This bb uses em. For those of you that aren’t aware of what this is … Look at the Search menu option in the header. Click on it. Then click on Tag search. Type in panfish and you end up with all the panfish articles since Readers Voice was started.

These are powerful but can be abused. Tags if entered free hand by the evaluator can be mistyped so you end up with tags dry Dry DRy Drie etc…
And each tag is specific to it’s subset.

However using tags or some other mechanism that are selected from a pre determined set via checkbox/radio button/ or pull down could work.

I like the material option too. None of the selection items need to be used remember, you get to choose which ones you want to restrict the 1000+ fly patterns.

It would be very cool to select Dry caddis or whatever makes sense…
and see a list of materials show up that COULD be used if you wanted…
then you select the materials you don’t have and the patterns using it go away from the list…

LOTS of good ideas here. Each of them has different requirements. And the BB section reserved for the flies allows you to free form enter comments on whatever I am not thinking of.

Thanks for the inputs guys… I’ll let this run another week and then distill the information overload to a single button… RANDOM CHOICE… ya… that’ll work.

ROFL
Thanks for all the great ideas… don’t stop yet!
–Ron–