Well, they tried. Editors and researchers at the Paper of Record compiled gardening resources and that's a good thing, but look what they included:
Lots of sites that are article mills and nothing more. That's easily determined by the lack of author bio, or even the identification of who's behind the website itself. Some corporation, one assumes, not gardening authorities. One of them DOES tell us their gardening information is written by a "crack team featuring gardening enthusiasts just like you. Some of us can barely maintain cacti." Bet you can't wait to read their advice! The other tip-off to the illegitimacy of the sites is the abundance of ads.
Oh, yeah, and P. Allen Smith.
On the plus side, they managed to unearth the Brooklyn Botanic Gardens, the National Gardening Association, Garden Voices and Kitchen Gardeners International. But where's Dave's Garden? Where are the outstanding Extension Services sites, like Cornell or Maryland? And where's the Renegade Gardener or Rainyside Gardeners)
But gee, you'd think that if anybody knows that Google searches do not automatically yield the most credible sources, it would be editors and researchers at the Times. And like me, you're surprised they didn't put a little more effort into this otherwise laudable project.
So readers, what sites would you have included?
I DO appreciate that that NYT link also includes a compilation of gardening articles from the Times itself and there I found some promising pieces that I missed. That's because I read the paper online and only look for gardening articles in the Home & Garden section, which usually disappoints. But lo and behold, the best gardening stuff is tucked away in "The City," "In the Region," "Escapes" (which covered garden coaching waaay back in June of '07!) and the Magazine.Posted by Susan Harris on June 17, 2008 at 12:48 pm, in the category Everybody's a Critic.