Best Practice for Using iNaturalist in the UK:

General
1

Best Practice for Using iNaturalist in the UK:

A practical guide for producing high‑quality, verifiable biological records

1**. Use Your Real Name (or a recognisable version of it):**

The UK recording community places strong emphasis on recorder reliability.

Using your real name helps:

~ County Recorders recognise you

~ verifiers contact you if needed

~ your records gain trust more quickly

~ your long‑term contributions build a reputation

Pseudonyms are fine for casual use, but serious recorders should be identifiable.

2. Record with the Highest Possible Location Accuracy:

Precise location is one of the most valuable aspects of iNat data.

Best practice:

~ Use the phone’s GPS or a dedicated GPS device

~ Aim for ≤ 5 metres accuracy, ideally ≤ 2 metres

~ Avoid large accuracy circles unless absolutely necessary

~ Never obscure locations unless the species is genuinely sensitive

Precise locations allow future recorders to re‑find species and track ecological change.

3. Provide Clear, Diagnostic Photographs:

A record is only as good as the evidence attached to it.

Aim for:

~ multiple angles

~ close‑ups of diagnostic features

~ habitat context shots where relevant

~ sharp, well‑lit images

For tricky taxa (galls, leaf mines, bryophytes, lichens, invertebrates), detail is essential.

4. Most Importantly Change your Licence Details:
~ change your record license from the default Cc-BY-NC to Cc-BY.

~ change your photograph licence from the default Cc-BY-NC to Cc-BY.

Otherwise Local Environmental Record Centres (LERCs) cannot use your Research Grade observations.

5. Add Brief Habitat or Micro‑habitat Notes:

A short note can dramatically increase the scientific value of a record.

Examples:

~ “Damp hollow, north‑facing bank”

~ “On rotten birch log, shaded”

~ “Calcareous grassland margin”

~ “Compacted path edge”

These notes help verifiers and future ecologists understand why the species is there.

6. Avoid Over‑reliance on the AI Suggestions:

The computer vision tool (CV / AI) is useful, but not authoritative.

Best practice:

~ Treat CV/AI suggestions as hints, not identifications

~ Only agree to an ID if you are confident

~ If unsure, choose a higher taxonomic level (e.g. “Fungi”, “Coleoptera”)

This prevents incorrect IDs from becoming Research Grade.

7. Engage with Identifiers and Verifiers:

The UK system values communication.

~ Respond to questions about your records

~ Provide extra photos if asked

~ Clarify habitat or location when needed

~ Be open to correction

This builds trust and improves data quality.

8. Use iNat’s Strengths — Don’t Fight Them:

iNat excels at:

~ photographic evidence

~ precise GPS

~ timestamped observations

~ distribution mapping

~ long‑term continuity

Lean into these strengths.

They complement the UK’s traditional recording systems beautifully.

9. Record Common Species as Well as Rare Ones:

Common species are essential for:

~ distribution modelling

~ habitat assessment

~ climate change studies

~ baseline monitoring

Recording them across a site (with good accuracy) is not padding — it’s ecological mapping.

10. Respect the UK Validation Pipeline:

iNat records enter the UK system via iRecord, where they must be validated.

To help verifiers:

~ ensure your IDs are solid

~ provide clear evidence

~ avoid speculative identifications

~ keep your profile transparent

High‑quality records move through the system more smoothly.

11. Contribute to the Community Where You Can:

If you have expertise:

~ help identify observations

~ confirm common species

~ correct misidentifications gently

~ support beginners

This reduces pressure on overworked County Recorders and National Scheme Organisers.

Summary:

High‑quality iNat recording in the UK is built on:

~ Accuracy

~ Transparency

~ Good evidence

~ Ecological context

~ Constructive engagement

8 Likes
Should my user name include my real name so that my observations have more value?
Guidelines: - Best Practice for Using iNaturalist in the UK:
2

I would add to this (certainly for invertebrates) please add the stage to the record (adult, larva, pupa, egg etc.). OK it can usually be worked out from the photograph but if it is not included that just makes extra work for those entering it into the recording scheme.

3 Likes
3

In the interests of balance, it should be pointed out that around 67% of iNaturalist records imported into iRecord have never been reviewed, compared with only around 20% for all other records. This situation hasn’t really changed since the import bridge was first set up in 2018.

If you really care about getting your records passed on to the UK recording schemes, iNaturalist just isn’t a reliable way to do this. Uploading the same data via iRecord will always have a far greater chance of being reviewed (as will sending it directly to the relevant recording scheme). This remains true, regardless of the actual quality of the data.

The sad fact is that many iRecord verifiers simply do not consider iNaturalist to be a reliable source of data. On the whole, whatever respect there may be for their validation process doesn’t seem to be fully reciprocated.

5 Likes
4

Also give a location name that matches where you have placed the pin in the map. If they don’t match, that raises the question which of them is wrong?

In particular, if you were recording in a nature reserve or some other type of protected area, give its official name. That will help conservationists collate records for the reserve.

6 Likes
5

Thanks everyone for the thoughtful comments — it’s been really interesting to see how differently various countries approach this.

Just to clarify the UK position a little, because it seems some wires have been crossed:

In the UK, biological recording is built on a long‑standing system of personal accountability.
County Recorders, National Recording Schemes, and Local Environmental Record Centres all work with people, not usernames. A recorder’s name forms part of the provenance of a record in the same way that the date, location, and evidence do.

Using a real name isn’t about exposure or ego — it’s simply how the UK data pipeline has functioned for decades. It helps verifiers understand who is recording what, build trust over time, and integrate observations into national datasets smoothly.

That said, nobody is saying that people must use their real name on iNaturalist.
Privacy concerns are completely valid, and pseudonyms are absolutely fine for casual use or for anyone who prefers not to share personal details online.

The point in the Best Practice Guide was simply this:

If you want your iNat observations to flow easily into the UK biological recording system, using your real name helps.
If you prefer to use a pseudonym, that’s perfectly OK — it just means your data may need a little extra context for verifiers.

Different countries have different traditions and expectations around identity online, and that’s completely understandable. The guide was written specifically for UK users who want their observations to integrate with the existing national recording infrastructure.

Thanks again for the discussion — it’s been helpful to see how these cultural differences play out.

2 Likes
6

For more than a century, UK biological recording has relied on:

  • personal accountability

  • recorder reputation

  • long‑term relationships with County Recorders

  • trust built over years of consistent, careful recording

This is not a quirk — it’s the foundation of the system.

A UK record is not just:

  • a photo

  • a date

  • a location

It is also:

  • who recorded it

  • their experience

  • their reliability

  • their history with the taxon

This is why UK verifiers instinctively ask:

“Who is this person, and what is their track record?”

That’s not gatekeeping — it’s quality control.

A photo is evidence — but the recorder is part of the evidence chain.

3 Likes
7

Please don’t take this the wrong way but this text has many markers of being AI generated and feels disingenuous to me.

5 Likes
10

from another thread spun off this one.

7 Likes
11

Thanks bazwal — that’s a fair point, and the backlog in the iNat → iRecord bridge is well known. My post isn’t trying to claim that iNat is the best route for getting data into the UK schemes; it’s simply aimed at helping UK iNat users produce observations that are more readily identifiable and more useful wherever the data ends up.

For people whose primary goal is contributing directly to a recording scheme, iRecord or direct submission will always remain the most reliable route. But a lot of UK naturalists use iNat for its community, its ease of use, and its global reach, and improving the diagnostic quality of UK observations benefits both iNat and any downstream systems that do choose to ingest the data.

So I see this guidance as complementary rather than competitive — raising the quality of UK iNat observations is worthwhile in its own right, regardless of the current state of the bridge.

1 Like
12

Thanks both (jhbratton and rogerbutterfield) — really good additions. The autogenerated iNat location descriptions can indeed be very vague, and editing them to match the actual pin location makes a big difference for anyone trying to cross‑reference records.

And yes, if the pin and the text name don’t agree, it immediately raises doubts about which is correct. Using the official name of a reserve or protected site is especially helpful, because many UK schemes and conservation bodies collate data by site name as well as by grid reference.

I’ll add a note to the guidance to emphasise this: accurate pin and accurate place name together give UK verifiers far more confidence in the record.

1 Like
13

Thanks David — that’s a really helpful addition. Life stage makes a big difference for many of the UK invertebrate schemes, and although it’s often obvious from the photo, explicitly adding it does save verifiers time and avoids any ambiguity. iNaturalist’s “Life Stage” annotation is easy to overlook, so it’s well worth encouraging UK users to add it whenever they can. I’ll include this in the guidance as a separate point.

1 Like
14

Thanks for raising it dgwdoesthings — no offence taken. The text is mine; I just tend to write in a structured way when I’m trying to make guidance clear and accessible for newcomers. I appreciate that this can sometimes read as a bit more formal than a typical forum post. The intention is simply to help UK users produce observations that are easier to identify and more useful downstream.

1 Like
15

Here is the ‘Guidance’ document with the 2 new sections added as per requests by davidhowdon and jhbratton:

Best Practice for Using iNaturalist in the UK:

A practical guide for producing high‑quality, verifiable biological records

1**. Use Your Real Name (or a recognisable version of it):**

The UK recording community places strong emphasis on recorder reliability.

Using your real name helps:

~ County Recorders recognise you

~ verifiers contact you if needed

~ your records gain trust more quickly

~ your long‑term contributions build a reputation

Pseudonyms are fine for casual use, but serious recorders should be identifiable.

2. Record with the Highest Possible Location Accuracy:

Precise location is one of the most valuable aspects of iNat data.

Best practice:

~ Use the phone’s GPS or a dedicated GPS device

~ Aim for ≤ 5 metres accuracy, ideally ≤ 2 metres

~ Avoid large accuracy circles unless absolutely necessary

~ Never obscure locations unless the species is genuinely sensitive

Precise locations allow future recorders to re‑find species and track ecological change.

3. Provide Clear, Diagnostic Photographs:

A record is only as good as the evidence attached to it.

Aim for:

~ multiple angles

~ close‑ups of diagnostic features

~ habitat context shots where relevant

~ sharp, well‑lit images

For tricky taxa (galls, leaf mines, bryophytes, lichens, invertebrates), detail is essential.

4. Most Importantly Change your Licence Details:
~ change your record license from the default Cc-BY-NC to Cc-BY.

~ change your photograph licence from the default Cc-BY-NC to Cc-BY.

Otherwise Local Environmental Record Centres (LERCs) cannot use your Research Grade observations.

5. Match the Location Name to the Pin:
~ edit the location name so it matches the actual position of the pin.
The autogenerated iNat text (“Near X”, “Somewhere in Y”) is often too vague for UK recording. If the pin and the text name don’t agree, verifiers immediately question which is wrong. Using the official name of a nature reserve, SSSI, LNR or other protected site greatly helps UK schemes and conservation bodies collate records by place as well as by grid reference.

6. Add the Life Stage for Invertebrates:

~ add the life stage where possible (adult, larva, pupa, egg).
Many UK invertebrate schemes treat different life stages separately, and stage information is essential for downstream validation. Even if it seems obvious from the photo, explicitly adding the life stage — using iNaturalist’s “Life Stage” annotation — saves verifiers time and avoids ambiguity.

7. Add Brief Habitat or Micro‑habitat Notes:

A short note can dramatically increase the scientific value of a record.

Examples:

~ “Damp hollow, north‑facing bank”

~ “On rotten birch log, shaded”

~ “Calcareous grassland margin”

~ “Compacted path edge”

These notes help verifiers and future ecologists understand why the species is there.

8. Avoid Over‑reliance on the AI Suggestions:

The computer vision tool (CV / AI) is useful, but not authoritative.

Best practice:

~ Treat CV/AI suggestions as hints, not identifications

~ Only agree to an ID if you are confident

~ If unsure, choose a higher taxonomic level (e.g. “Fungi”, “Coleoptera”)

This prevents incorrect IDs from becoming Research Grade.

9. Engage with Identifiers and Verifiers:

The UK system values communication.

~ Respond to questions about your records

~ Provide extra photos if asked

~ Clarify habitat or location when needed

~ Be open to correction

This builds trust and improves data quality.

10. Use iNat’s Strengths — Don’t Fight Them:

iNat excels at:

~ photographic evidence

~ precise GPS

~ timestamped observations

~ distribution mapping

~ long‑term continuity

Lean into these strengths.

They complement the UK’s traditional recording systems beautifully.

11. Record Common Species as Well as Rare Ones:

Common species are essential for:

~ distribution modelling

~ habitat assessment

~ climate change studies

~ baseline monitoring

Recording them across a site (with good accuracy) is not padding — it’s ecological mapping.

12. Respect the UK Validation Pipeline:

iNat records enter the UK system via iRecord, where they must be validated.

To help verifiers:

~ ensure your IDs are solid

~ provide clear evidence

~ avoid speculative identifications

~ keep your profile transparent

High‑quality records move through the system more smoothly.

13. Contribute to the Community Where You Can:

If you have expertise:

~ help identify observations

~ confirm common species

~ correct misidentifications gently

~ support beginners

This reduces pressure on overworked County Recorders and National Scheme Organisers.

Summary:

High‑quality iNat recording in the UK is built on:

~ Accuracy

~ Transparency

~ Good evidence

~ Ecological context

~ Constructive engagement

1 Like
16

If “use your real name or a recognizable version of it” refers to one’s user name, this strikes me as a bit arbitrary and unnecessarily exclusionary. It is possible for users to provide their real name in their profile without choosing this as a username; this name is included in the observation information that is exported to other databases. There may be any number of reasons why one might choose something else as a user name (including having a common name that is likely to be taken, or wanting a consistent user name across various internet platforms).

Recorders might also consider that iNat automatically assigns place names when one selects a location pin. This is generally something in the broad vicinity but may not reflect the precise location of the pin. This does not make date provided by the observer unreliable or suspicious. It also may not be obvious how to manually change the place name listed on the location, and even if one knows how to do this, it can be time-consuming to manually alter it for every single location. Under 5 m accuracy also seems unrealistic for people who may be manually setting pins, without any great advantage in data quality over a slightly larger circle (say, up to a few hundred meters). It seems like you risk discarding perfectly good records by being overly stringent.

I will finally note that only a tiny portion of iNaturalist users regularly visit the forum; if you want to reach UK users some other venue for communicating may be more effective.

6 Likes
17

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback — much appreciated. A few clarifications that might help explain the intent behind those points.

On real names:
The suggestion wasn’t meant to be prescriptive or exclusionary. It was simply reflecting the fact that many UK verifiers and schemes prefer to know who a record comes from, and some users don’t realise that adding their real name to their profile is an option. Using a real name somewhere — whether as the username or in the profile — is perfectly fine, and I’ll make that clearer.

On location names and accuracy:
Agreed that the autogenerated place names aren’t inherently suspicious — they’re just often too vague for UK cross‑referencing. The point was to encourage people to edit them when practical, especially for well‑defined sites like reserves or SSSIs. And yes, <5 m accuracy is unrealistic for manual pin placement; the intention was simply to avoid very large circles that make the record hard to interpret. I’ll rephrase that section so it’s more about “reasonable precision” rather than a specific threshold.

On reaching UK users:
You’re absolutely right that the forum only reaches a small subset. This post is just a starting point — I’m planning to share a distilled version in other UK‑focused spaces where it may be more visible.

Thanks again — these are useful points, and I’ll adjust the guidance so it reads more clearly and avoids giving the impression of unnecessary strictness.

2 Likes
18

I haven’t seen a mention of wild vs cultivated/captive and the need to mark appropriately (apologies if I missed this). This is an issue with both new and experienced users’ observations, and also with identifiers who choose not to mark observations that are obviously not wild as such.

2 Likes
19

There’s an important distinction to be made between improving data quality on the one hand, and adopting different practices to suit a particular recording system on the other. These two things do not completely overlap. Parts of your list seem to make the assumption that what’s good for iRecord is good for biological recording in general, which seems questionable.

Adopting different practices can incur extra costs, so there needs to be an additional payoff if there’s no corresponding improvement in data quality. This was the point of my previous post. Why should anyone pay these extra costs when using iNaturalist, if they only get a 35% return on their investment, rather than the 80% they’d get by using iRecord?

This is not a matter of some simplistic competition between iNaturalist and iRecord. I highly doubt that anyone reading this forum would willingly switch to using iRecord just so they could avoid all the problems with the data bridge. However, if you really care that the large majority of your data gets through to the relevant UK recording schemes, what should you do? The only viable option is to upload the same data to both systems, and turn a blind eye to the duplication (which I know is a hot-button topic for many people).

Is the current recording system in the UK still fit for purpose? Many of its practices will seem quite antiquated to most iNaturalist users. For example, 27 million of its records have apparently been verified - but only 17% of them have photos! So the vast majority of their “research grade” data has no supporting evidence whatsoever. What does it even mean to say these records have been validated? I assume this must explain why so much fuss is made about real names - it’s often very much a case of who you know, rather than what you know (in scientific terms, that is).

4 Likes
20

Thanks again, bazwal — you’re raising important distinctions, and I agree that improving data quality and adapting to the UK’s existing systems aren’t identical goals. The guidance isn’t intended to imply that iRecord’s practices are the gold standard, only that many UK schemes still rely on certain conventions, and iNat users who want their records to flow smoothly into that pipeline can benefit from being aware of them.

The aim isn’t to tell people how they “should” record, but to highlight the practical consequences of different choices. Some users care deeply about downstream use; others don’t. Both approaches are valid. The guidance is simply there for those who do want their iNat observations to be as usable as possible within the current UK framework.

On the question of extra effort: I completely agree that any additional steps need to have a clear payoff. Some of the suggestions (e.g. clearer photos, habitat notes, reasonable location precision) improve data quality regardless of platform. Others (like licence settings or location naming) are more about compatibility with UK systems. People can adopt whichever parts align with their own goals.

As for the wider state of UK recording — yes, it’s a mixed landscape, and some practices do feel antiquated compared to iNat’s evidence‑based model. But that’s exactly why I see value in helping iNat users produce strong, well‑documented records: it nudges the whole ecosystem in a better direction over time. None of this is about competition between platforms; it’s about making sure good observations don’t lose value simply because they don’t fit legacy expectations.

I appreciate your thoughtful critique — it helps refine the guidance so it’s clearer about what is genuinely about data quality, and what is about navigating the current UK infrastructure.

2 Likes
21

I assume you mean as to the UK standards, and not iNat generally?

22

@SteveMcBill thanks for your thoughtful engagement with this thread. I might add a couple of notes that I think are significant. Sorry if others have said some of this and I’ve missed it, it’s a lot to read!

  1. Make clear the distinction between Display Name and username. The username is irrelevant, the display name is what goes through to iRecord.

  2. Wherever you share this, stress at the start that this is to better integrate your records with the existing national system, and is ultimately optional - this is especially the case where privacy is concerned. But also, doing this makes it feel like more of an inviting cooperation than a list of demands. I can see from your wording that you have tried to produce a soft feel, but internet text is a such a toneless medium that it is worth being very explicitly gentle, inviting and ‘non-insisting’. This will help to increase buy-in

  3. It is good to encourage people to include notes. However, given the purpose of this list I feel obliged to point out that these notes are not transmitted to iRecord. Very frustrating, since there is no reason why they shouldn’t be, iRecord has a field for it. And I’ve heard recorders complaining about the lack of notes from iNat! (having said that - verifiers can click directly through to the original iNat record to check, but they don’t know to!)

There’s a lot of great advice in there. Thanks.

7 Likes