@Nolan Sanner I agree with Nevin’s statement. When I’m addressing, I’m looking at the depth of the inclusion vs the weight bearing on the affected stem. It doesn’t answer the question of when, but can easily answer how it will happen.

Incentivizing reviews this way is typically bad practice. Some review sites (like Yelp) prohibit this method and there's legal protections to the consumer if they decide not to give a good review with actions taken against them. Personally if we want to offer a “free” PHC suite and maximize feedback, it should bundled in a package that’s beneficial to the consumer. Like the ones we’ve discussed and did mock design of. The other way is if we want to test a product for efficiency. This clearly hits marks 1 and 2, providing us with valuable data without running the risks of a client paying for subpar results.

All are/can be good ideas. For now, the focus on building up the advancement modules is paramount. Other than that - let it mold itself. It’s still hard at this time to specifically pick what’s good vs not. Just keep content rolling and see what everyone gravitates to the most :)

If my assumption is correct, this is a maple that has gall mites. The holes are there from their feeding pattern. Depending on the "infestation level", I'd venture to say pruning, or handpicked removal of infected leaves. if isolated however to my understanding they are a mostly cosmetic nuisance. However on younger trees, they could be a significant stressor.

I’d say yes. They’d definitely cause a cascade of problems for the tree. Plus they’re very aggressive to the leaves.

I don't like that my vote is that low. My resources have been being used elsewhere. I reviewed much more of it post expo, but recently has been minimal.