Thankyou for all the comments everyone, I did not know this thread would be so popular. I’ll have to read through them properly after Christmas, I’m a bit busy right now.
Just quickly, I did think of creating another account for these photos but so few have date and location that it would not be worth it, it will be just 10 or 15 total I think. Kind of a shame as there are quite a few undated photos from botanical gardens and other places around Australia.
Also, I think there are some interesting philosophical conversations to be had about whether one can experience nature through a photograph. My eyeballs weren’t at the location, but they can still see what was there, I feel this is still an observation. I can also think of my grandmother’s observation as belonging to me now, its like she froze it in time and passed it on to me. What is ‘the self’ anyway, is consciousness really individual? Perhaps it is instead universal and only memory individual, maybe the same universal consciousness observes all and the sense of separation only comes from memories stored in individual heads, or in photographs. These remain eternal questions so far as I’m concerned
From the now abandoned ‘Cactus Ranch’ near Adelaide:
Why not? - but perhaps its best to create a separate account for your grandmother’s observations, with a bit of explanation provided in the profile.
In some regards, in building this huge global database, old records may be more valuable than current ones. This is all about building a database useful to science, and there is no scientific reason to shun those old records.
In eBird, among the most interesting records I’ve seen are for North Korea in the midst of the Korean War. I presume the observer was a soldier with one of the South’s allies. Almost all other North Korean eBird records are from people standing near the border, looking in.
But you did not experience that tree at that time and place – what you would be reporting is someone else’s experience of that particular tree. An observation is not an observation of a species, it is a record of a specific encounter with a member of that species.
Why not instead encourage your contacts to create iNaturalist account of their own so they can share images of species that are infrequently recorded on iNat?
If you want to use iNat to record all the species you have seen even if you do not have photos, you can add an observation without media (this will be “casual” because without media it cannot be verified, but it will still be counted on your “life list” page).
This is the issue. Common names are often used across multiple species. I live in a place where only Spanish and Maya common names are really in play but even so we have issues with common names being used across multiple species.
For example there is a type of flower called “brujita” (little witch) because it appears as if by magic after rain. Only this common name is used for every member of Zephyranthes, many of which look alike.
This is not the exception, more the rule, unfortunately, which is why for the community to accurately identify what you saw, it is essential to use photos you know with certainty represent your experience because you were present instead of photos others provide years later based on your description.
In places such as the Amazon basin, where not only is Portuguese in use but multiple native languages (I am not familiar with “Amazonian” but am not a linguist), there is likely even more confusion regarding common names.
Of course you experienced it even if you did not get a picture of it. I am not debating that. But what a photo provides is a record of that experience. If you did not get a picture, you do not have a record of it.
Someone else’s picture of a certain individual organism at a certain time does not represent the experience that you had with a different organism at a different time. A picture of your cousin taken by a friend yesterday does not represent your experience seeing your uncle 10 years ago – even though they are both closely related humans. Likewise, a picture of the Eifel Tower taken in July at midday is not the same thing as a picture of the Eifel tower taken at 6 pm in December. If you were to show the first photo to your friends when telling them about your December trip, it is unlikely that they would feel that this photo represents your travel experience.
iNat has a very specific definition of an observation; you are free to privately feel that this does not fully represent your experience, but iNat only works and the data only has meaning if users all agree to follow the same definition when posting on iNat:
An observation records an encounter with an individual organism, or recent evidence of an organism, at a particular time and location. (source)
Likewise:
Photos or sounds attached to observations should include evidence of the actual organism at the time of the observation, observed by the user who is uploading the observation. Media used in your iNaturalist observations should represent your own experiences, not just examples of something similar to what you saw. (source)
You could always post them to DiscoverLife. They have no limit on no of photos, but make sure you own the copyright. That’s not the same thing as owning the photographs. If you were explicitly left the photos, the copyright would probably go with the residual estate.
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation and opinion on the matter. I read the Source you provided and in my interpretation of what I read, I see no conflict with what I have stated. Of course, I know will disgree and I will respect your right to do so, and will not try to convince you otherwise.
Photos taken by others when you were not present do not represent your own experience – it is someone else’s experience. Period. You were not there; you did not experience this specific scene first-hand. This is not an “opinion” or an “interpretation”, and everyone in this thread has been telling you the same thing.
If you choose to upload photos taken by other people with the date and location where the photos were taken, this is technically a breach of iNat’s guidelines, even if you have those people’s permission to use their photos. Whether it is enforced or not is a different question, but please note that iNat will attribute these photos and sightings to you because there is no provision in the technical infrastructure for photos not taken by the observer.
If you upload photos taken by other people with a date and time that represent when you saw that species or a similar one some time in the past, this is falsification of data, because the photo was not taken when you claim it was taken. Again, nothing to do with “opinion”.
A reminder of some of our community guidelines, e.g.
You don’t have to have the last word. Sometimes differences cannot be resolved. Learn to recognize when this has happened and resist the urge to reply if you have nothing constructive to add to a conversation.
and
Bad faith arguments - this includes dredging up old arguments and not adding anything new, sealioning, dishonesty, and general trolling.
As to
Observations without media do not ask other users for identification by default - e.g. they do not show up in the Needs ID section. People are welcome to upload as many of their personal observations of nature without media as they’d like. Doing so is neither useless nor inconsiderate.
To the topic’s original question, because the question has been answered by many community members, including staff weighing in, and because of the ensuing unconstructive discussion, I’ve closed the topic.
