The current approach for annotations (Adult, Alive, Flowering, etc.) is that any user can apply an annotation and other users can then vote that up or down, but subsequent annotation choices are limited by what other users have already chosen. I’m proposing a system that more closely matches the way…

It won’t happen, observation is for 1 individual only, nothiing bad in duplicating.

Thanks for the kind words, @tommy_andriollo . To me the idea of a consensus process for annotations is separate from the issue of supporting multiple individuals in an observation, although there are some connections between the two. I do see some value in being able to note more than one individual…

Actually, according to this comment by @tiwane , it does seem like per-photo annotations could be on iNat’s roadmap. If that thorny issue can be solved, then it seems to me the independent issue of community consensus for annotations should definitely be fixable.

Although I totally agree in principle, before I’d prioritize this over other feature requests and bug reports, I’d like to better understand the value of annotations to the iNat data set. Are researchers using the annotations? When iNat data goes to GBIF or anywhere else, are the annotations going a…

[image] michaelpirrello: Are researchers using the annotations? Maybe? I’m revinded of the blog post about a researcher using iNat to analyze the effects of temperature on male dragonfly wing coloration, but it doesn’t say whether he filtered by the male annotation, or looked at everything a…

[image] ekmes: I would also love to be notified when someone disagrees with the annotation I’ve made so I can go back and re-asses my understanding of the observation. I’d go as far as saying notifications for this are essential. Perhaps this could be considered in the notification overhaul . …

I’m making heavy use of Annotations in my current gall phenology project. They are extremely useful but in these taxa it is very common for users to misapply Annotations in several different ways and it’s frustrating that there’s no way for me to correct them without asking each user to do it themse…

Just using the most recently applied annotation would certainly be a simpler approach @megachile . And it’s reasonable to think there will be a lot fewer real disagreements about annotations than there are about IDs, so we can hope that edit wars would be a rare issue. But I guess there will still be…

Also edit war potential where there are multiple organisms in the photo, but I agree with you that it’s probably rare.

I think simply adding a comment in notes as to which organism is the focus of an observation could help remedy that potential issue, though of course, it won’t fix the problem entirely. Even so, I believe the benefits of this proposed system would out way the cons.

Apply community consensus logic to annotations in the same way as for IDs

Feature Requests

schoenitz July 6, 2020, 5:33pm 13

I’d go as far as saying notifications for this are essential. Perhaps this could be considered in the notification overhaul.

Topic		Replies	Views
Make Annotations correctable, not just marked "Disagree" Feature Requests under-review	29	2121	February 22, 2026
Annotations: Male/female, etc.—How to get more action? General question	74	4135	October 20, 2020
Adding annotations - does anyone use them? General	89	2238	December 30, 2025
What do you wish people knew about DQA/Annotations General	44	2052	May 3, 2023
Annotation Sunday General	56	2081	January 23, 2025

Apply community consensus logic to annotations in the same way as for IDs

Related topics