Worst database entries?

Options
try2again
try2again Posts: 3,562 Member
I was complaining today about some terrible database entries I had to sort through, and it made me think this might be a fun (and somewhat educational) idea for a thread. What database entries have you found that were the most egregious?

A personal favorite of mine:

Breast Original - Fried Chicken
Kfc Chicken - Breast Original, 0.75 CUP, 160 calories

At least they measured it??
«13456

Replies

  • CattOfTheGarage
    CattOfTheGarage Posts: 2,750 Member
    Options
    Oh gosh, I've seen some humdingers, but I can't call them to mind right now. If I remember any, I'll come back.
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 17,959 Member
    Options
    CyberTone wrote: »
    I'll take general crap for 1000, Alex.

    q4q3s2rhep5x.jpg

    Haahaa that whole list is fantastic!
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 17,959 Member
    Options
    lorrpb wrote: »
    Verified entries mean nothing. Anybody can click the verify button.

    The green tick verified entries only happen when either the staff verify or, I'm told, a few users 'verify' the entry and the macros add up correctly to the calories.
  • try2again
    try2again Posts: 3,562 Member
    Options
    I guess I should have been more specific... I was thinking "worst" in terms of ridiculously low calorie counts for the item.
  • skymningen
    skymningen Posts: 532 Member
    Options
    try2again wrote: »
    No doubt one of the people who "logs everything" but still can't lose weight ;)

    I see that as one of the biggest problem, that some entries are so redundant but vastly different in calories/macros that you are able to pick what fits you best. I hate when I try to find a vegetable entry that has fiber logged only to see that that's the one which does not match the calories of most of the other options. I would sometimes love to be able to merge entries. But then set up another "this is what I believe is true" one?