If a user uploads a broad image of a range of plants - some clearly wild, some probably not, is it appropriate or inappropriate to cast a DQA vote as not wild as user did not specify to contrary? …
I ask this as I have encountered multiple examples of plant identifiers DQA’ing broad plant obs into casual as I haven’t specified subject on upload. I find this wildly lacking in courtesy, and a direct misuse of DQA voting,… but tagging in another curator they seemed to support the action, which surprised me.
Whats the community consensus on grappling with these sort of obs?
( please do not cast aspersions on me for why I might upload broad obs without specifying subject immediately! … I have a long list of reasons - but thats really not the point - these obs exist beyond me, and will continue to exist, so what is the acceptable way to deal with them? )
I would say
Always ask the user what the subject of the obs is… and do not assume its for a cultivated plant in image unless specified
Do not place to casual using DQA or assume subject of obs is one of the cultivated plants, unless there is no response from user for a certain period of time.
Even then, in the case of no response after X days or months… if there are wild plants in the image, better to place as one of the wild plants than cast into casual by identifying one of the cultivated plants(?)
Does the community agree this is a direct misuse of DQA by identifiers otherwise…?
The definition of an observation on iNaturalist is an encounter between an observer and an organism. If you’re going to post an observation containing a photo of many organisms, it is incumbent on the observer to specify which of the organisms in the photo is the subject. If an observation has no clear subject, and the observer has added no comment, identification, or closeup photo to indicate what the subject is, then an identifier is well within their rights to make an assumption as to what they think the subject might be and act accordingly. You say it is “wildly lacking in courtesy” for someone to do this, but put yourself in the shoes of someone volunteering their time to identify observations. A dozen identifiers may waste their time trying to interpret the intentions of a series of photos with no context. If I saw that photo posted with zero comment or ID added, I’d probably mark the DQA Cultivated as well, as a courtesy to the other identifiers going through Needs ID. All it takes is one click on your part to counter that DQA if you later decide to pick a wild subject in it and add an ID. So it’s saving multiple identifiers time but costing the observer a couple seconds adding a DQA vote.
I think I’ve had an answer to this question maybe once in like a year of doing this. (I mean, I suppose I must have had an answer at least once? I can’t remember ever having received an answer, to be honest.)
If there’s a DQA that definitely applies, I’ve found that it’s much more effective to just go ahead and mark it. So many times I’ve run across an observation where somebody left a question five or six years ago, and how many people have wasted their time looking at that observation since? If it’s cultivated, and if it’s really obviously cultivated, I mark it cultivated. If someone leaves a comment, I will happily come and change my vote (or hey can just counter-vote me).
That said, I think that deliberately pretending to think the observation was of a cultivated plant when that isn’t obviously the focus is…kind of a jerk move. The DQA should be used in good faith.
This is what I actually do, except I usually do it right away (especially if the observation was made days or weeks ago). Better to pick something, and get some value out of the observation.
The chances of this resulting in identifying the wrong thing are so, so small. People who upload landscape photos generally didn’t have a specific focus in mind for that one, because they didn’t yet know that they should.
The exception for me is photos where there is not enough detail to identify anything except possibly something cultivated. In that case, better to identify it and mark it cultivated. A cultivated observation has at least some value.
I don’t think it’s at all lacking in courtesy to pick something to identify so that a useless observation may become useful.
However, if there is something that is not cultivated that can be identified, it’s much kinder to pick that. (You are not always required to go out of your way to be kind. But it would be more kind to pick a plant that’s not cultivated, when you can.)
Hmm thats a bit of a twist on what I originally said ( or intended at least).
I am specifically talking about misuse of DQA votes.
An identifier placing the above image to a specific plant would be wonderful.
This is what usually happens in similar UK plant obs in my experience.
If the plant they specified was cultivated thats cool too - then I can duplicate for other plants if I want. But that’s not whats happening - in the instances I am talking about, there is no ID added, just DQA voting it into casual - frassing effectively.
For clarity - I’m a seasoned identifier - just not in plants - mainly in inverts…
( over 85000 identifications )
I don’t see this as a question of identifier patience which is how you seem to frame it if I understand correctly. I see it as a question of correct approach. If as an identifier, you lack patience for the activity, change activity.
If I get bored of looking at blurry fly pictures, I don’t just frass them all out of frustration.. I look at family level obs instead… etc etc…
I honestly don’t understand this approach.
It confounds me.
As far as I can see this is in breach of iNat rules and grounds for suspension even if done repeatedly. Its simply misusing the DQA.
To me, this is an exciting overgrown scene with lots of fun plants in it!
As an identifier - if these were flies, I would usually note for the observer the different families visible and suggest they duplicate and split to record them all.
Or, if an older observation without response, I would just choose the most interesting family to identify ( but still note the other families / genera in the image in case the observer later checks in and wishes to duplicate down the line )
I highly recommended that if you are getting frustrated with identifications, you go searching for obviously cultivated plants that are obviously growing in a pot look it’s even indoors, and mark them cultivated. It’s very satisfying.
Edit: I really was not directing this at anyone specifically. I just saw a reference to getting frustrated while identifying, and I just happened to be having that experience right at that time (of marking a bunch of obviously potted house plants cultivated), and found it surprisingly cathartic to do something so simple and easy. I consider this to be adding value to those observations, not getting rid of them, because it is useful to know what can be cultivated where.
without any guidence by pre-existing IDs, comments or cropped images. I would identify the above image as a Mango tree, eventually mark it as cultivated and move on. Sure there are a few additional identifiable plants in this shot (e.g. cultivated Musa sp. and is that a wild / invasive Leucana leucocephala in the lower left corner?) But it’s the observers job to specify what the observation is about.
I know that it can take a few hours after the upload for everything to get fixed with cropped images and comments. So i usually ID older observations only.
And yes i think its a little unfriendly to simply tick cultivated, without leaving a comment or better providing an ID. I do see it often though…
My initial impression of the picture you posted was that the buildings were part of a unit and formed a courtyard. In those circumstances, everything tree-sized probably would be cultivated. Now after looking at the picture five or six times, I’ve noticed that the buildings may not be be grouped together and there’s a stream(?) flowing between two of them. If this is actually a boundary area between properties, I have an easier time seeing all or most of these plants as wild. But without some sort of context or prompting to read the scene carefully, I can see why someone might have gone “courtyard trees => cultivated”.
Yes, that is a stream… and yes, I hadnt factored in how that might look to others in that regard I guess. I certainly wouldnt describe this as a courtyard. I don’t believe its cultivated land. But this is in Bali… I have no idea of norms here beyond the compounds and rice fields which are very tidy. To me it looked intensely overgrown and not tended in any way. Most plants seemed similar to the untrained eye to that which was in the adjacent more clearly wild area ( again alongside stream but further down )
In my opinion, if your purpose for uploading observations like this is to have " a record of a cool nature scene", then I would select something in it, crop it, and identify that, then put this as an additional photo of that particular organism. In other words “save” this image as part of a more specific observation, rather than simply posting images like this that will only lead to controversy. If I understand what else you wrote, you are wanting to place the burden of breaking out all of the individual organism on others, rather than taking it on yourself. I personally do not feel that this is an appro[riate use of iNat, and adds unnecessary confusion for those who dedicate so much time helping with IDs.
It is often the case that a user who has uploaded one observation of a cultivated plant also has multiple other observations of cultivated plants. On such occasions I may comment on one or two observations and mark the rest as cultivated without comment, as it does not seem like a good use of time to comment on every single one and this might also feel to the observer to be excessive (if they see the comments at all).
I realize that if someone encounters these observations individually at a later date, the silent “cultivated” vote may seem unhelpful and unfriendly, but the lack of comment doesn’t necessarily mean that the person marking the observations is simply ruthlessly clearing out the unknown pile without any thought for the feelings of the observer.
I wouldn’t click “cultivated” when the subject is unclear and there is a mix of wild and cultivated organisms. But I probably would click that there is not “evidence related to a single subject”. A photo like this is good for context, but please also include a cropped photo of the subject, preferably as the first photo.
The question is whether you voted in good faith. If you honestly think that the focus of the observation is a cultivated plant–or if you honestly thing that the cultivated plant is the most useful thing to identify, then it’s perfectly fine.
“I didn’t honestly think that was the focus, I just wanted to get rid of it” is not voting in good faith.
Most of the time you can’t actually use it this way, because it will be grayed out if there’s only one photo, because that’s not what it’s for. It’s intended for cases where there are multiple photos with multiple focus organisms.
(There is no DQA for “it’s not obvious what the focus is”. I often wish there was one, though I’m not sure it would actually work.)
I think a lot of the trouble in these cases comes from wanting to use the DQA for something that is not really covered by the existing DQA. I agree that there are some things that are frustrating (duplicates!), but using the DQA to do something it’s not currently intended to do is not cleaning up a mess, it’s just making a mess even messier.
But to plant people – I see houses, landscaped plants, no reason at all to presume they are Wild. There may be some wild weeds or volunteers, but at this distance … who knows.
Imagine ‘butterfly world’ with feeders and exotic butterflies, in a heated conservatory in mid-winter. Captive, right ? And this is the equivalent of a black spot on the wall or the floor – insect ? – does it even have visible legs or wings, is it alive ?
We need a DQA for landscape, with no particular focus on A Particular Plant.
It takes 2. If the observer wants an ID, they owe identifiers information.
I think it’s good to clarify with the original poster, but if the OP doesn’t provide context to clarify their intent, I don’t see it as rude to guess. What I’d like to happen is that if I mark something cultivated and the OP comments “OH, this was actually a volunteer in a pot that I brought inside to get better lighting to ID” I would get notified so that could retract my DQA vote.
I don’t think I presently get notified? BUT I’m still not sure this is a problem: With OP having explained the context, and countervoted my DQA, the obs reverts to research grade and the next IDer will be able to make an informed decision and move the community DQA and ID forward.
If a user isn’t able to indicate the focus of a complicated observation initially, I think it’s on them to check on their IDs later and clarify any misunderstandings. A risk of “casual” grade until this is done doesn’t, to me, seem incalculably rude.
