How to judge exhibits that are visible year round vs ones that aren't?

[reduakari]

The question is not meaningless, but you apparently don't really want to address this issue much, so you just say things like that instead.

And once again, this thread isn't about CGF.

I'm using CGF as an example to try to get at your somewhat obtuse point--it is an exhibit in a temperate zone that does not try to be equally good in good weather and bad, and yet still ranks as a great exhibit. I've never seen an indoor/outdoor exhibit that was truly great in both conditions--zoos wisely focus on doing one or the other really well, depending upon their local conditions. As I mentioned before, both the indoor and outdoor areas of Pongoland at Leipzig are very good, but neither are great.

 

[mweb08]

I'm using CGF as an example to try to get at your somewhat obtuse point--it is an exhibit in a temperate zone that does not try to be equally good in good weather and bad, and yet still ranks as a great exhibit. I've never seen an indoor/outdoor exhibit that was truly great in both conditions--zoos wisely focus on doing one or the other really well, depending upon their local conditions. As I mentioned before, both the indoor and outdoor areas of Pongoland at Leipzig are very good, but neither are great.

Thanks so much, you're so kind.

The point is clear and I think should stimulate an interesting conversation if people would cooperate more. If you don't think the indoor/winter part of the exhibit should affect it's total rating, that's fine, I'm just trying to get some opinions on here, and would prefer people stick to the hypothetical ratings I posted earlier rather than naming specific exhibits or zoos. When people start mentioning actual exhibits and zoos, their bias clouds their judgement.

 

[reduakari]

I went to the Bronx Zoo today, and of course CGF which is great, but that, my opinion of the zoo in general, along with various discussions on here got me thinking how we should factor in the fact that some exhibits are only visible 6-9 months a year, while the animals are generally in mediocre to poor enclosures during that time.

For example, lets say we have three exhibits of the same animal:

Exhibit X: 8/10 rating, open year round.




Exhibit Y: 9/10, animals indoors and off-exhibit for 5 months.

Exhibit Z: Outdoor 8.5, Indoor(open to public) 5.

Should example Y be considered the best and X the worst? For visitor purposes, Y would be a zero for 5 months, and would lets say a 3 for the animals during that time. Should that be taken into account?

To me, it seems like exhibit Z typically gets punished on here because people see the average indoor enclosure and knock it. However they(with a few notable exceptions) typically give Y a pass for the off-exhibit area likely because all they see and analyze is the outdoor part.

This can also be taken past the individual exhibit rating and to the whole zoos rating.

One zoo is an 8.5/10 year round, while another is a 9 for 7-8 months, but a 5 during the colder months. Do you combine those numbers in anyway, or do you just give it a 9? Which zoo would you rather be your hometown zoo?

I like to rank exhibits and zoos, but I'm really not sure how to deal with this issue.

Okay back to your original question.

You are attempting to quantify things that are inherently subjective and therefore unquantifiable.

There is a reason you are not sure how to deal with this issue. It's all about personal opinion......

thanks for adding all the great photos on the Gallery--much more productive to view them than to continue this circular conversation!

 

[mweb08]

Okay back to your original question.

You are attempting to quantify things that are inherently subjective and therefore unquantifiable.

There is a reason you are not sure how to deal with this issue. It's all about personal opinion......

thanks for adding all the great photos on the Gallery--much more productive to view them than to continue this circular conversation!

Of course it's about personal opinion.

I must have missed the memo saying we shouldn't have threads that deal with personal opinion.

It's not my fault that this is a circular conversation, it should be very simple. People say how they'd rate the hypothetical examples and explain why.

Considering rating zoos and exhibits is much of what goes on here, I think it's good to know what people think about this, and maybe what they say will have an impact on me and/or others.

 

[Aglemar]

I think the problem is you are maybe viewing things with your own bias. I personally only go to the Toronto Zoo right now since it is the one I am near. Would it be nice if it was designed so everything is open year round? Not really. When you can get a sudden snowstorm dropping half a meter of snow, ice storms leaving sheets of ice on everything, and slush everywhere then most people tend to not like going on trips, driving places, or walking outside for extended periods of time. This is what you have to keep in mind when you compare these things (Interesting note, I believe the mayor of Toronto once had to call in the army just to help deal with the snow). Its not the exhibit thats only open 7 months a year, its the people only being interested in going to see it 7 months out of the year. For the other 5 months the focus shouldn't be on interesting exhibits but in keeping the animals safe, healthy, and happy.

As to your point about why challenge should get extra points. Grow a flower in your garden, now grow a flower on the moon. One is more challenging, yet both are equally impressive right? To me an exhibit is impressive because its recreating a creatures habitat in an area removed from their natural one. To me then the more removed an area is from their natural habitat the more impressive being able to recreate it would be.