Wikipedia style nutritional info on foods not in the database?

I spend so much time entering foods which aren't already in the CC database and I am frustrated when I tag the item but then I can't change the amount I've consumed... for instance if the first time I enter the info and it's for 2 slices, then the second time I want to enter the item I eat 4 slices, I can't quickly change the amount... I have to rewrite the whole thing.

Is there any way you could open up the database so the users could enter the food that they, and others, may eat which aren't already there? Wikipedia works because the users correct errors by other users.

Or at least a place we could enter the info and then you guys could put it into the database. Hormel Natural Choice Hams and Turkey please...

I second that request!!!

I am tired of dividing and multiplying in my head for different protion sizes! At least make it so when we change the amount, it will auto change the cal/nutrients!

Tag the lowest amount that you normally eat.  in your original example 2 slices.  If you eat 4 enter it twice.

Thirded!

fourthed.

I agree as well.  For me this is perhaps the biggest limitation of this site. If the database were open then there would be a lot less need to manually enter data. Is anyone aware of another site that allows this? Calorie King?

Sorry, but I want information that's been checked by professionals for accuracy.  If you would like a food added to the database, use the "contact" link at the very bottom of the page to send in your request.  Give the brand name and the name and location of the company that made it, and as much information from the label as you can.   It'does take a while for new items to appear because they are added in batches.

Hi Claire, I don't understand your comment about "checked by professionals for accuracy."  My understanding is that the nutritional grade that is assigned to foods by the site is generated by an algorithm and not by a nutrition professional.  The only thing that I think is done when a food is entered into the system is to enter the information from the side of the packaging.  This hardly requires a professional.  I also often find that the information in the system is a little bit off from the information that is on the side packing even though the item descriptions are identical.

I did look at the contact link at the bottom of the page and that did not seem to be a very good interface for submitting food information and there isn't even a "regarding" option that would correspond to putting food into the database.

Original Post by hofmeist:

Hi Claire, I don't understand your comment about "checked by professionals for accuracy."  My understanding is that the nutritional grade that is assigned to foods by the site is generated by an algorithm and not by a nutrition professional.  The only thing that I think is done when a food is entered into the system is to enter the information from the side of the packaging.  This hardly requires a professional.  I also often find that the information in the system is a little bit off from the information that is on the side packing even though the item descriptions are identical.

I did look at the contact link at the bottom of the page and that did not seem to be a very good interface for submitting food information and there isn't even a "regarding" option that would correspond to putting food into the database.

 I wasn't talking about the nutritional grade, which is just a guideline generated by a computer program.  I mean that I want the actual nutritional label to be accurate.  If we have people adding things themselves there is no way to know that they are putting in the correct values.  A database is only as good as its data.

There could be some sort of symbol that would notate that that certain food was entered by a CC user and not by a umm..."professional." 

Also, there's PLENTY on this site that differs from the label.

Mfg's can change nutritional content which changes the labels. So today's purchase might be a little different from last years entry into CC's database. When I encounter such an occurrence I accept CC's values if they are very close, or I enter them myself and tag the entry if its something I'll have again.

I think this is a great idea.  I don't mind entering things myself once in a while, but it would be nice to get a letter grade on things you've entered yourself.  Obviously calorie counting in general is a priority, but its nice to have that letter grade when you're trying to work towards a more balanced and healthy diet.

I also like the idea of users being able to add things and then having some notation that states that it has not been reviewed or verified by the people who run the site.  More often then not I'm sure people would enter things correctly, but if its a risk the users are willing to assume then by all means let them. 

I think this is all wishful thinking though...these are pretty big changes.  Maybe someday.

I think this is a great idea. And I understand maybe not wanting people's personal listing in the main database, but why not just have the option of putting in the information for a food not in the database like you do now, except let it be saved in a personal database per account. That way you can refer back to it in the future and change the servings like you would the main database entries. Then it would only effect each individual and would save a lot of time.

Plus, it seems like they are already fairly close to this, I can't imagine it to be too much work to save those entries and make the servings more adjustable.

This would be especially helpful for homemade meals from all fresh ingredients that you know the overall nutritional value for, rather than entering every single different ingredient.

I agree with the requests to have the site auto-adjust for servings when you've already saved all the info in the past (both foods and recipes).  The Wikipedia-style database sounds nice, but I care more about the auto-adjust!

Original Post by yiscah:

I agree with the requests to have the site auto-adjust for servings when you've already saved all the info in the past (both foods and recipes). The Wikipedia-style database sounds nice, but I care more about the auto-adjust!

Me too... right now the only way to make a recipe so you can adjust the serving sizes is to make the serving size as near to 100 grams as possible (by editing the number of servings), then when you enter the food, it says 'per 100 grams' and you hit that, then you enter the number of grams... it's a lot more complicated than entering regular foods! :)  

We could wikify recipes too, so people can comment on a popular recipe with their own variations... and we could track how maky times each recipe was logged, if we don't already, and make recipes searchable by popularity :)

Of course, these are all *suggestions*, not complaints - I read over some of my posts and I sound a bit annoyed, but I have to keep reminding myself, it's free and five years ago we would've had to pay a nutritionist hundreds of dollars a year to do this for us (and it wouldn't be nearly as easy!)

I know the site admins have a lot on their plates. I'd like to reiterate how great the site is and how much help they've been to me and thousands of others. It's great already; there are just some ways it could be even greater!

B-B-B-bump!

TheDailyPlate offers this option - and all the user-entered foods I've seen on there are accurate and timely! For example, Sunflower Chips have recently entered the market and are a healthy alternative to potato chips... but you wouldn't know it from our database!... but DailyPlate does have it..

Just a reminder that this would be very helpful! :)

Original Post by clairelaine:

Sorry, but I want information that's been checked by professionals for accuracy.

Funny, but I find that most of the time when something I want to log is already in the database, I have to manually enter it anyways because the nutritional info is almost never correct when checked against the label.  Just sayin.

Edit: I didn't realize that this thread has basically been dead for almost a month.  Sorry!

Original Post by carrie317:

Original Post by clairelaine:

Sorry, but I want information that's been checked by professionals for accuracy.

Funny, but I find that most of the time when something I want to log is already in the database, I have to manually enter it anyways because the nutritional info is almost never correct when checked against the label. Just sayin.

Edit: I didn't realize that this thread has basically been dead for almost a month. Sorry!

It's been dead but people keep bringing it up; I think it's still a great idea; otherwise, most new foods (like for example, salad spritzers, which just came out a couple of years ago but still aren't in the system) aren't going to be included in the database and those that are there already may never be corrected to match the manufacturer's new labels.

Original Post by auriam:

Original Post by carrie317:

Original Post by clairelaine:

Sorry, but I want information that's been checked by professionals for accuracy.

Funny, but I find that most of the time when something I want to log is already in the database, I have to manually enter it anyways because the nutritional info is almost never correct when checked against the label. Just sayin.

Edit: I didn't realize that this thread has basically been dead for almost a month. Sorry!

It's been dead but people keep bringing it up; I think it's still a great idea; otherwise, most new foods (like for example, salad spritzers, which just came out a couple of years ago but still aren't in the system) aren't going to be included in the database and those that are there already may never be corrected to match the manufacturer's new labels.

I am going to chime in to explain why we don't rely on user-generated content for nutritional information. Basically, the issue does not only lie in accuracy, but also in duplicate entries, naming, tracking, etc. We have 2 consultants who basically spend their entire day talking to different restaurants and adding new or modifying existing information. This clearly limits the growth rates of our database, but we were not under the impression that the size is our biggest challenge in this regard. I would say it is much rather the ability to find what's already in there, and also the ability to update information as manufacturers overhaul their products. I am a little sceptical that this can be controlled as effectively in a Wiki-type layout as it can with our current approach.

Obviously, if I could choose, I would prefer to have both - the latest products on the market AND the piece of mind that it's verified information. But if I had to choose, I would take the latter. As much as the food industry continues to reinvent itself every year, the more that things change, the more our diets are still all the same. I still eat the same things I enjoyed a year or two ago, and I am sure the same is true for the majority of our users.

Once again, our system is not perfect, but Calorie Count is committed to accuracy more than some of our other competitors, and that's a part of our brand. Which other site gives you a nutritionist for free? (See Ask Mary if you are not familiar with that service)

And finally, I can assure you that we do want our database to grow and be as complete as possible - so if you'd like to make a request for a new food to be added, you can do this here.

I don't get to spend much time on the forums and will let you guys continue to communicate with our moderators. Thanks for bringing this up and for caring!

I knew you would have a very good explanation for him.  The only thing I could think of was accuracy.

Thanks!