So, I posted a fungus a couple weeks ago as an observation. Yesterday, I went back and snapped more photos because it grew. I want to add these photos to my observation. Is this a good way to do it? Or is there some rule against this? In other words, should it be a new observation? I would make a comment that I added photos 10/8/2019.
Under iNat guidelines for an observation, it needs to be done as a separate observation.
I read the FAQ a little bit but I didn’t notice that because it is under heading named “What kind of photos should I attach to observations.” Please consider breaking this out to a separate bullet point.
Personally, I would add it. When I get a spore print off a mushroom, I always add it. It’s of the same organism and could help differentiate further. However, if you do decide to do separate observations, you could always provide the link to the first observation and even comment on that one with the link to the updated observation, if that makes sense.
Yeah, that is the preferred approach – in a comment or in the description. There are also some observation fields that have been created for “Related Observations” where you can put in the numbers or URLs of other observations.
The iNat guidance is pretty clear:
What is an observation?
Observations are the basic units of iNaturalist. An observation records an encounter with an individual organism at a particular time and location.
With mushrooms, I feel as though if I collect a specimen and get a spore print of that same specimen that it belongs with the observation for the specimen which I received the spore print from. I can understand if it were on a different day entirely that it should be a different observation. That’s just my thoughts.
Yeah, same-day photos of the same organism haven’t really been an issue. Every photo is at least a few seconds apart, so it would be hard to draw a line for how long of a gap is too long. But the general expectation is that different days would be different observations. If an organism changes drastically during the same day, then it would be obvious that they were taken at different times (and should probably be separate observations). But otherwise no one is likely to notice if they are a few minutes or hours apart.
(And let’s not get into whether immediate pre- and post-midnight mothing would be on separate days… )
Yes, of course linking is a good method. I agree a spore print should be included.i wasn’t aware that some fields already reference other observations.
Pretty clear, but consider a more specific bullet point in the FAQ for speed skimmers like me. I read an FAQ by skimming the headings.
I have added another observation and linked back and forward to each other. As time goes on, and the fungus grows, I will add more observations and keep adding links back and forward on and to each observation.
Here is from today, it links back to my original observation, and in turn, that links to the observation today.
That’s one way to do it, but may get tedious as you get more observations. I use the “Similar Observation Set” field as described by @kiwifergus here: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/using-the-field-similar-observation-set-for-linking-observations-of-lepidoptera-when-raising-on/1018
Then you can post a link to the search page that will bring up all of your linked observations: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?verifiable=any&place_id=any&field:Similar%20observation%20set=25116939
Which is cool.
If you want it broken out, you should submit that as a topic under “Feature Requests”.
That’s where the developers and admins (who have the power to edit the FAQs) will be able to see it, without it being a easily overlooked comment within a separate topic.
This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.