Forum

I would really love to see them included. As previous posters have said it is really helpful for cooking to accommodate allergies (which in my case is often for guests, so being able to exclude recipes on their requirements would be really helpful). A recent example that I would have loved for EYB to be able to help me with was when I didn't have any eggs, and realised at the last minute that I needed to bake something for the next morning that I'd forgotten about (couldn't get to the supermarket in time). Trying to find a cake recipe that doesn't include any eggs was not something that I could do with EYB. I think some of the assumptions about what cooks will have on hand don't play out consistently in reality, or in how a lot of people would like to be able to use the site. It could be invaluable for allergy sufferers if eggs and dairy (butter and milk) were indexed. 

The never include list works for me, but eggs, dijon, lemons (which even in small amounts can mean the difference between a good and poor result), and even onions, I tend to only buy in for something specific unless I have some left over from something else - in which case I'm probably looking for something to use them up.  Vegetable shortening? I think I have only ever bought that once in the last 10 years. I don't know if anyone else's habits for shopping, searching and cooking mirror mine. 

One of the real benefits of EYB is being able to answer "what can I cook with what I have on hand (or without something I need to exclude)?". I guess the question to answer is how much this benefit is desired in your model vs the impact it would have on indexing time, costs and member indexing incentives. 

My vote is for include. 

j_h, did you try using EYB's search Filters? If you filter by Baking > Cakes, large and Nutrition > Egg-free in the entire EYB Library/Recipes, and use Only Show...Online Recipes, you get 82 recipes. Here's the search: https://www.eatyourbooks...&online-recipes=true 

Actually, I would like all ingredients to be indexed. Also it would be much quicker to index recipe, and in my opinion it is just clearer.

If I wanted to not be overwhelemed in researching recipes, I would then add them in a specific SC ingredients category when under the threshold, and offer the option to search all, or omit the SC ingredients when researching a recipe.

I am very happy with the indexing the way it is. I check my recipes at home before I go shopping so I never have the problem of an incomplete shopping list.

I guess I am a hoarder but I always have the 'pantry ingredients' in the house.

This is such a great site, I cannot praise it enough.

I am in favour of indexing perishable ingredients. I don't consistently have lemons, onions and garlic (I cook for one and it can be difficult to find them in small enough amounts to always have them around). I usually (but not always) have eggs on hand, but they are most often already ear-marked for another recipe. I only buy them when I know I can use them). I don't tend to have wine in my home unless for an occasion or a specific recipe. I also agree that store-cupboard ingredients depend on cuisine and culture, we can't assume they are the same for everyone. Some ingredients like vegetable shortening might be staples in the US but they aren't in France where I live for example.

In general, even when cooking large amounts and lots of different recipes for the holidays for example, knowing approximately how much you need of everything is just easier to plan for than when you know you have to have butter on hand but you don't know how many of the recipes will need it. You might end up running out. I think it's just better for a recipe index to be able to search everything. To be completely honest these store-cupboard ingredients never made much sense for me, they don't suit my way of shopping and cooking at all. This already bothered me before this question was asked but I didn't know it was even possible for them to be changed ! 

However I do see how difficult it could be to go back and update all the recipes already indexed, and that it would cost more money. EYB is such a great resource, even without these changes, it is still amazing. If the changes can't be implemented I'll still be pleased with this site. So I guess you'll have to decide whether it is worth the extra cost in exchange for more precise indexing.

For the most part, count me as a vote for pretty much keeping it the way it is. I don't want every recipe with onions or garlic in it to pop up every time I'm doing a search for onions or garlic; I only want those if they are major ingredients. It would make the search results much less useful.

Lemons should probably be indexed in every case. I teach in-home cooking classes and have found it is rare for people to keep lemons on hand. I'd probably index milk, but that's because I never have it on hand unless I buy it for a specific recipe. On the other hand, if I'm going to cook something I always look at the actual recipe before I go shopping, so this isn't a big deal to me.

I would prefer for all ingredients to be listed -- even if it's unrealistic for them to be retroactively added to recipes already in the index, maybe they could be listed going forward. I feel like I have a rather extensive pantry (probably a dozen different kinds each of oils and vinegars!) but I'm another person who often doesn't have many of the so-called "store cupboard ingredients" in stock, especially lemons, wine, milk, onions, etc. This is mostly a problem with perishable ingredients so adding those would be a huge improvement, but i do also have this problem with some non-perishables... for instance, I often have only light OR dark brown sugar in my pantry, not both, and I'd prefer knowing which a baking recipe called for when I'm in the store shopping rather than having to go home and look in the actual cookbook first.

I like it the way it is. As a home cook and mother, I always have the store cupboard ingredients on hand.

However, as far as indexing goes, it would be easier on both sides to just enter all the ingredients.

Originally Posted by: Deborah

 

mjes, could you explain further what you mean by "what level of standards the recipe is coded to"? 

Think of level as standards as the date the standards were made official. Each time the standards change, they go up a "level".

Originally Posted by: Agaillard

Again I think a good way to satisfy everyone, would be to create a specific ingredient category for SC items, which you would be able to include in the search or not. . . .

An excellent idea. I notice that those who do not want a change either give no reason, are concerned about mixed standards, or are concerned about the rate of professional indexing, or are concerned about increased search results. I believe that the pro change arguments are stronger. The strongest argument against is the increased search results which affects only searches in which the pantry item is a primary ingredient. I suspect that is a small percentage of the overall searches - eggs would be most likely to have this problem.

Originally Posted by: eliza

For me, I don't want EYB to put time and energy into including these ingredients. I would much rather have a way to quickly search across all my bookmarks, something that doesn't exist at the moment.

Luckily, the two items you list require different skills and hence different people so it's not either/or - both is equally possible.

Originally Posted by: TrishaCP

Not exactly. Are concerned because EYB has been explicit that current professional indexing rates will decrease if we make this change. And are concerned that the shift in resources is a shift away from EYB's current mission of helping us find recipes in our cookbooks, to a similar but different goal of finding more and complete lists of ingredients in (fewer) cookbooks.

That is one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is to see it as increasing our ability to search for recipes for allergens, varieties of vegetarians, actual pantry items. I prefer being able to scan recipes more accurately rather than more recipes with less precision. But the size of my collection means that I need to be more concerned with getting too many results - despite much of my collection not being included in the EYB library. And the fact that I am a native of the West Coast means my pantry items are much more Pacific Rim based rather than European based. And the fact that I am retired and live alone means I am more apt to be low/out of perishable item I do consider pantry. And the fact that I grew up on a cattle ranch means my pantry items are more of the home-grown variety. The result is that "mustard" to me means ground mustard seed not a prepared tumeric/mustard condiment; my pantry item is my current leftover e.g. Mustard and Co. creation i.e. Bow Hill Blueberry.

My fear is that EYB will accidently box itself into a narrow market of media driven, European oriented cooks. I want them to be as useful to the English speakers in India, Singapore, Finland, Argentina ... as USAmembers.