Message Boards » Website Suggestions/Feedback

TOPIC: Data quality.

Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
September 21, 2012 9:01 AM
Hi! The app is phenomenal, but lack of accurate nutritional data is its biggest weakness. Though not all data can be rectified, how about you guys establishing a perfectly accurate database of the most common foods, and marking them differently in the list? That way you start getting some accurate statistics and users get good quality data to choose from. Example, we can start with getting numbers for all fruits accurate, then going to breads, then other most common food items.

Thanks! Great work!
September 21, 2012 9:09 AM
And maybe make it optional to "use" other MFP member's foods? Or the verified ones..
September 24, 2012 8:39 PM
I think weighting 'verified' foods more heavily - by, eg, # of verifications (in increments of 2, 5, 10, 20+, 50+) so they rank higher on a list, would be good.
September 24, 2012 8:49 PM
You can find the Administrative-entered (and correct) foods by looking for the ones in the list with no asterisk ( * ) in front.

If it is a whole food, like apples, or cucumbers, you can further deselect by using "apple raw"...this is just a work-around. I know they have discussed a separate data list for admin just hasn't happened yet.

Also. When you enter a food or edit a food, your entry will also appear without an asterisk in front in the list.

edit to say...this is for the web version. I'm not sure if it works this way in apps or not.

Edited by cmriverside On September 24, 2012 8:50 PM
September 24, 2012 8:54 PM
CM is right, the * in front denotes a user-entered food so if you are on the website you can look for one with no * in front and they should be correct.
If you are using the app (iPhone anyway), you don't see the * (or no *) but you will see your most frequently used foods so that gives you quick access to the foods you know are correct.
September 24, 2012 9:26 PM
True. But you often have to scroll through to find non-asterisked foods. It would be good to at least be able to filter them out ( -*, or, tick a checkbox for 'USDA verified foods only') . Also, the benefit of MFP compared to other sites is the user data. Verified user data is more valuable, and should be weighted more heavily.

Not saying I can't work around it, but it's not ideal. (& since changes are planned, thought I'd endorse ones I think make sense.)
Edited by anemoneprose On September 24, 2012 9:28 PM
September 25, 2012 8:05 AM
much like the "raw" qualifier you can also search "apples USDA" and get ones that at least claim to be USDA verified or at least mentioned them in the creation of the food.
September 25, 2012 8:32 AM

much like the "raw" qualifier you can also search "apples USDA" and get ones that at least claim to be USDA verified or at least mentioned them in the creation of the food.

But those are still member-entered. At least the ones entered in the original data set appear to have been migrated in some way - they contain all the nutrients....not just the big ones. I don't trust anything member-entered, unless I personally verify it.


Message Boards » Website Suggestions/Feedback

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.