About

Why this exists

Houseplant advice online is abundant and mostly unusable. It repeats the same dozen sentences across thousands of pages, tells you to use "well-draining soil" without giving a recipe, and answers "is this toxic to cats" with a yes or no that does not distinguish a sore mouth from organ failure.

The gap is not more writing. It is structure: the same fields, recorded the same way, for every species, so that two plants can actually be compared and so a reader who returns learns to read an entry at a glance. That is a database problem rather than an authorship problem, which is the premise this site is built on.

Who runs it

Tony Valcarcel is the editor and publisher. He is not a horticulturist or a veterinarian, and the site never presents him as one. Facts come from the ASPCA, university extension services, the Missouri Botanical Garden, and Kew, and every page names its sources. The editorial work is checking provenance and clarity, not deciding horticulture. That division of labour is described in full on the methodology page, including the things this site refuses to publish.

Where it stands

There are 25 species here. The target is considerably larger, but breadth before the entry format is proven would only multiply a bad template, so the early set is deliberately small and hand-built across varied genera rather than a single easy family.

Some things are deliberately missing. There are no grower-report percentages, because no survey has been run and inventing the numbers would be worse than omitting them. There are no toxicity pages yet beyond the classification on each species entry. Both will arrive when the underlying work is genuinely done.

How it is funded

Through display advertising and affiliate links, neither of which is live yet. When they are, affiliate disclosure appears before the first commission link on any page carrying one, and rankings are never sorted by what pays. That second promise is enforced by an automated check, not just stated here.