Seems as though bioblitz season is beginning. Are there any established strategies for dealing with the torrent of IDs that will come? Is it every identifier for themselves, or a divide-and-conquor, or rapid response scanning for multi-photo/multi-species observations and sending splitting requests? Something else?
I’m doing my duty wrt the beginning of the 2016 bioblitz season and it’s very tiresome. It would be great if there were ideas for helping to head quality problems off at the pass…
The best strategy is patience and understanding :) And only do what you are comfortable doing. Support each other and diffuse tensions when you see them, but above all else, keep it fun for everyone :)
And 2016? Not sure what you mean there…
well, the city nature challenge is starting soon, so expect the site to have a huge surge of bioblitzers soon. On the plus side it’s so huge it really does generate a lot of interest in iNat and nets us a significant number of longer term users each time.
Has the City Nature Challenge been announced on iNat? I expected it to be, but the only notices I seemed to get this year were on a journal post made by a local in my area, and from joining the project included in that journal post. Just curious . . .
Well, look at that! So there are :-)
I created a saved query for Unknown observations starting with Jun 2015. Occasionally, mostly when I’m feeling masochistic, I take a crack at a few pages and mark them as Reviewed. I’ve made it up to the bioblitz in May 2016. I know this because many of the user IDs have “bioblitz” in them. I don’t know what proportion the Unknown ones form of the total # of observations, but not many of them can be improved; unless a miracle happpens and these users come back to split the observations they are not worth anyone else looking at. I optimistically hope that what I’m seeing is a tiny proportion of the total of the bioblitz, so all I see the dross!
As I progress, I am becoming rabid again about believing that someone (curators? other holy people (lol)) should be able to split multiple photo observations. I understand the issues about place and time, but when we know the images are part of a bioblitz (either by ID choice, or place/time) assigning a date based on the bioblitz dates and assigning the same place as the initial observation (perhaps set to an accuracy of a mile), along with a DQA flag indicating that time and place were estimated, many of these obs could be retrieved. And let’s face it, few of these participants are coming back (at least with the same ID).
OK. I’ll stop ranting.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.