Audubon Trees: I like but..... Review

Add reviewAudubon Trees: I like but..... Good reviewsAudubon Trees: I like but..... Bad reviewsAudubon Trees: I like but..... Review RSS feed
Audubon Trees has 191 reviews. Enter your email below and we'll notify you when new reviews are added, so you can comment, share or remove the reviews. This is great for monitoring your apps or the competition's apps
I like but.....
First I agree with previous reviews that the pics need to be improved, especially with more close-ups of leaves, bark and fruit. I have four additional issues though that I offer as suggestions for improvement. 1. On the Description page for each species the only name I have for families are the old common names instead of the correct ones. I have "pea" instead of Fabaceae, "maple" instead of Aceraceae, "beech" instead of Fagaceae, etc. Curiously though the screenshots shown in the app store show that both the common and formal family names are given. Not on my version! (downloaded 2-3-10) 2. On the main image page the common and Latin name is given in the lower left hand corner. For many species with long Latin names they are not completely shown. For example all I get for Texas buckeye is "Aesculus glabra var......." Nowhere in the description is the full name given. 3. This is very minor but several trees have the latin species name capitalized which it never is supposed to be. 4. UI issue. I LOVE the Life List but when I click on the Life List icon my lists do not show up. I have to first click on the "album" tab then click again on the "Life List" tab for them to show up. I still really like the app though. If these issues are improved its an easy 5 star.
Cblevins on Feb 4, 2010 for Audubon Trees
share · comment
Needs Consistent Pictures
As pointed out in previous reviews, the pictures of trees in this app are inconsistent and therefore make it difficult to differentiate trees of the same family. For example, if one was trying to determine whether a particular tree with white bark was a European White Birch, a Gray Birch, or a Paper Birch, it would be very difficult with this app. Only the Gray Birch shows a close-up of the leaves, and their description mentions nothing about how to tell the similar birch species apart. I suggest including consistent pictures of each species - leaves, bark, fruit, and overall shape. That would greatly improve the usefulness of this app. I'm hoping that Green Mountain/Audobon is working on this for their next version of Audobon Trees.
Birdsng on Jan 19, 2010 for Audubon Trees
share · comment
Every expectation surpassed...
I originally had downloaded tree id, which turned out to be disorganized and the search format hard to use even for a vetted user. After taking a chance on the Audubon - Tree version I've been nothing but happily impresse:. Easy to use, comprehensive, accurate information.
Forpeace on Jan 9, 2010 for Audubon Trees
share · comment
Tom Tree on Jan 6, 2010 for Audubon Trees
share · comment
Extremely disappointed
I was expecting a version similar to the print version of the Audubon Field Guide to Trees. I really don't understand the purpose of this app; it seems like it was designed for someone who is proficient at tree identification, which defeats the purpose of a field guide. Unlike the book version, there are no pictures of the bark, and no close-up pix of the fruit. When you bring up a species to view, there is a button for pictures, but there are no pictures other than the "gallery" pictures, which are very poor, as they are not close enough. It is not set up like a field guide at all. Until they have a revision which even compares to the print version, save your money and buy the book.
David M. Fanale on Jan 3, 2010 for Audubon Trees
share · comment
Ok but needs more photos
The interface and descriptions are great, but the photos are severely lacking. Some species only have one, many don't have a clear bark shot, some don't even have a good shot of the leaf, and there are almost no shots of buds or twigs, making it almost useless for winter ID. Bur oak, for example, does not have a photo of its most distinguishing characteristic, the acorn. I guess it's an ok value for $10 when compared to the higher price of the hard copy, but I was expecting more. The number of photos would probably need to be at least doubled to make it really useful. The addition of illustrations would also really help, probably even more than additional photos.
Nevdaw on Jan 2, 2010 for Audubon Trees
share · comment