A group have recently revegetated a plot of land (~1000 plants). It is very difficult to locate these new plants amongst the surrounding grasses. I have photographed all off them. There are probably only 8-9 different species within this collection.
iNaturalist has been the most useful tool I’ve encountered so far for generating maps of biota.
I’d like to upload these 1000 photos to iNaturalist. I’ll mark them all as “captive/curated”. I’ll include them in a dedicated ‘revegetation’ Project I’ll create specifically for these observations. I’ll “tag” them all with the location name, “revegetation”, and “cultivated”, etc. I plan to give them all an initial ID of “vascular plants” until I get a chance to narrow their ID down as far as I can.
I just wanted to check with the ID community before I do this bulk upload, because it’s really important for me to keep the ID community on side. People such as @mftasp and @mattintas have been incredibly helpful in giving their time and expertise to my observations to date, so I don’t want to test their generosity or patience.
So, before I proceed with this bulk upload, is there anything else I should do, or do differently, to minimise any inconvenience/annoyance to the ID community as a consequence of this planned upload?
What you are suggesting is the right way to go - and yet, other than the captive/ cultivated marker, it won’t make any difference if someone is viewing your observations in the Identification tab. What does appear to identifiers in that tab - at least if they are looking at more than the thumbnails - is anything you write in the Description box. That’s where I’d put whatever message to identifiers you think is appropriate.
For identifies who look at just the thumbnails (I think an irresponsible way to identify, but that’s just me), perhaps some sort of project watermark on the photos themselves would be helpful?
Interesting idea… I’m not sure what I should say in the watermark. It is also very hard to “reverse” or change the watermark, once I’ve uploaded the images. The watermark stays there forever.
I would say, don’t worry about a watermark. Put the explanation in the discussion. Surely most of us who identify from thumbnails also (often) identify from more complete information, especially with plants because the parts we need to see are often so small. So we’ll see the explanation sooner or later, and probably (maybe not) learn.
If they are marked as cultivated at the time of bulk upload, then the majority of identifiers are not going to see them anyway. Those that work off a modified filter are not likely to be upset at what you are doing, and presumably if they have the skills to work off a modified filter, they also have the skills to
“work around” your bulk upload by filtering that out seperately and marking them all as reviewed. As long as you listen and respond appropriately to any (civil and reasonable) suggestions, I think you will be fine. You could add a brief description to them all easily at the time of bulk upload, but it wouldn’t be a problem if you didn’t. I do think “more communication” is better than less, though!
My utmost respect for you, for having taken the time to evaluate the impact of your project prior to implementation… many don’t!