Maybe the issue is ‘from a science perspective’, but there are groups that are grateful for presence-only information. I work with a group on butterfly and moth atlases at a provincial level. We aggregate data from multiple sources (iNat, eButterfly, BOLD, GBIF etc) and, collectively, it is a very powerful dataset. Would more detail be nice? Maybe, but don’t underestimate what is here. Interesting provincial and national ‘firsts’ have shown up on iNat.
The lack of a standardized ‘count’ annotation has been driving me nuts for years. But the iNat admins have declared that annotations cannot be quantititive:
It makes no sense to me, but that is the imposed reality. Please add your voice to this thread if you would like to provide feedback on the topic:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/lets-talk-annotations/627