Database integrity

jofjltncb6

In a perfect world, there would be no bogus entries in the database (such as "net carb")...

...but I get it that some people want to do this (for some unimaginable reason)...

...so I have one small favor to ask if you insist on doing this:

PLEASE DO NOT MODIFY THE RECORD THAT IS LINKED TO THE UPC CODE!

Thank you.

That is all.

Dark_Roast

I second this!!

Carnivor0us

Net carb is important to me, I don't think it's bogus.

That being said, there are a lot of repeat entries that need to go.

PikaKnight

Agreed! Stop messing with the UPC entries. You want to make your own whatever food entry to fit with how you track carbs, etc...fine, whatever. Just don't link it to the UPC entry...or link to the wrong ones either.

usmcmp

Yes! I've created an entry not shared with the public that allows me to enter negative carbs if I am focusing on net carbs. Not that hard to leave the database alone and just use my negative carb entry.

jofjltncb6

Net carb is important to me, I don't think it's bogus.

That being said, there are a lot of repeat entries that need to go.

Ok, not bogus...but it *is* nutritionally incorrect...

...and that's fine. You can have your nutritional incorrect net carb entries. I'm not telling you that you shouldn't have them...

...but don't use the UPC-linked record for it...because it isn't nutritionally correct...and I suspect that the vast majority of people want the *correct* nutritional information.

saschka7

Hell, if people can actually spell stuff correctly before entering it in the database, that'd be a big start....

Ditto on people who put their names on entries like "Stephanie's favorite-Chipilte Buritoe Bowel no gwac or chz"

[I just made that entry up as an example of stuff I've seen.]

BrainyBurro

there are 38 entries for the basic egg. i just did a quick check.

that's not including all of the various other egg entries that include other things such as cheese or ham or the many entries for egg whites or egg beaters.

honestly people, it's ok to make private "my food" entries to make your logging easier, but PLEASE don't make them publicly visible in the food database. it clutters things and confuses things, especially when you can't be bothered to enter all of the nutrition information correctly.

we don't need to have different entries for all of the different brands of eggs either. an egg is an egg.

we don't need separate entries for "1 egg scrambled" or "1 egg, fried" or "1 egg, poached" or "1 egg, hard boiled". again, an egg is an egg.

this is why the database is such a mess. people who think they are helping others by making their "my food" creations public when such an entry already exists publicly. i for one am not going to check 38 different egg entries to find one that has accurate nutritional information. i simply created a correct egg entry as one of "my foods" and kept it private.

multiply this by 1000x, and then again by 1000x and that's how you end up with a database so full of half correct and contradictory entries for the same thing that the database becomes inherently untrustworthy.

i'd rather see people banned for mucking up the food database than posting funny gifs on stupid threads in the Chit Chat forum. at least the people in the Chit Chat forum aren't making this site more difficult to use properly.

tiffanyraylene

How are net carbs bogus or nutritionally incorrect? Its just total carbs a food minus the fiber in that food. Fiber has been shown to have no effect on blood sugar because it is not broken down by the human body. There are soluble fibers and insoluble fibers. Insoluble fiber keeps the digestive track working well and soluble fiber can control cholesterol and improve blood glucose control but neither give us any calories.This is the premise for low-carbing, Atkins, and those who choose to monitor their NET carbs. I keep track of mine just for the heck of it on here by adding "fiber" as one of the macros monitored on my food diary. I keep them one column to the right of my carbs. At the end of the day, I subtract the fiber from each food from the carbs and add the remaining carbs together and make note of the number in my food diary. I keep track but don't live by it. I agree that there's no point in amending ANY food entries to accommodate those tracking net carbs. Basic math is not difficult lol.

PikaKnight

I think the point of the thread is being missed by some.....

BrainyBurro

I think the point of the thread is being missed by some.....

Barbellerella

I think the point of the thread is being missed by some.....

MFP crowd on most days..

PikaKnight

I think the point of the thread is being missed by some.....

that the nutritional info that is entered how it is supposed to be entered isn't messed with for certain people's tracking methods in regards to when it is tied to the UPC scan.

Want to make your own so you can track certain things a certain way? Fine. this thread isn't an argument as to whether fiber is valid, etc. The fact that it is entered as part of the nutrition LABELS means that the UPC scan tied to this label should be left alone, and people quit replacing it with their own means of measuring their nutritional needs.

PikaKnight

I think the point of the thread is being missed by some.....

MFP crowd on most days..

lmao

taunto

I understand that there are entries made by MFP staff. I also understand that the entries made by non-staff is marked by a asterisk (*). Why not have a staff member check for the entries made by non-staff for accuracy. Or better yet, have some volunteers with priviledge to check/add/clean the database? I know for non-American/British/Aussy grub the database is extremely flawed.

Great thread jof. This post should be moved to suggestion imo!

SyntonicGarden

I agree with not altering things that are tied to UPC codes. provided that the packing information remains consistent with the manufacturer. If Frito Lay changes the serving size or nutritional content of something and repackages it with the same UPC, I don't see what the big deal is.

Personally, if we're talking about this, I'd like to add getting rid of entries that aren't measured / massed out using a scale or some other measuring device, like 1 medium apple (no weight). Or perhaps we could fix entries so that I don't have to search for milk that's not measured in tablespoons (or that calculates TBSP to fluid ounces magically).

And then can we get rid of things like... I dunno... "Dog Food - Iams" submitted on 04/08/2009 and the Hills K/D Cat food? Or am I asking for too much?

kdeaux1959

there are 38 entries for the basic egg. i just did a quick check.

that's not including all of the various other egg entries that include other things such as cheese or ham or the many entries for egg whites or egg beaters.

honestly people, it's ok to make private "my food" entries to make your logging easier, but PLEASE don't make them publicly visible in the food database. it clutters things and confuses things, especially when you can't be bothered to enter all of the nutrition information correctly.

And to confound this, there will be at least 15 DIFFERENT values for these 38 entries of "egg"...

jkal1979

It would also be nice if you didn't have to scroll through the user entries to find the MFP entries when searching basic items. They need to have them at the top as a default.

Carnivor0us

You know what? ****in forget it

jofjltncb6

You know what? ****in forget it

Touched a nerve, huh?

Carnivor0us

You know what? ****in forget it

Touched a nerve, huh?

Nope, just not worth my time