There’s the right way, and there’s the easy way. I guess that’s your point, yeah? :)
2 Likes
Hardly. Those 3 clicks maybe take 1 second.
1 Like
I guess another factor is that my internet connection is slow, so it unfortunately takes some time for the other tabs to appear when I click on them (can end up taking 5 -10 s). I guess this might not be a problem for the majority with better connectivity
5 Likes
I use “No Evidence of Organism” rather than Captive / Cultivated for duplicates. I’m not really a power identifier, so the extra time to vote in the DQA doesn’t bother me. IMO commenting rarely works, but I usually do it as well. Does my method seem acceptable to those of you who are bothered by the incorrect use of “Not Wild”?
2 Likes
There’s a topic about “no evidence of organism”, with people on both sides.
1 Like
This is the iNat stance I disagree with most. This logic could just as easily try to justify every image on iNat as a evidence of a homo sapien- it takes a human made device to create a photograph, so a pure black image is evidence that a homo artifact was in some place.
Duplicate picture of a wild organism? Evidence a human was there. Rose garden? Human planted it. Pretty picture of ice or clouds? Human. Sooner or later someone is going to take this stance and it honestly makes as much sense as IDing a road sign as a person.
3 Likes
You are not alone … waiting … for … iNat to react to your last click.
4 Likes
Yes, that is true. But it can simply be thought of as if the obvious subject is a Human or Human artifact, then IDing it as Human in the correct course of action. If not, then it isn’t.
1 Like
I don’t see anything about human prisoners or hostages in the curator guide. It says “Please keep in mind that pictures of pets, humans, obvious test observations, and drawings that depict the organism observed are appropriate, unless someone repeatedly posts such content.” Did I miss something or look in the wrong place?
Some people would argue that humans are not “wild organisms”. Either way, you might be able to exclude “homo sapiens” in a search for captive/cultivated organisms to get what you’re after without changing a lot of observations of humans.
2 Likes
In California, there is a toilet that was released into the wild many years ago, and survives there to this day:
11 Likes
Well, they are not equivalent - that’s a misconception. To stick with the metaphor of the thread title and the bit of potty humor going on: Think of it as sorting garbage. (And no, I’m not suggesting any of the observations on iNat are garbage, just using this as a metaphor to illustrate the concept!)
There’s the recycling bins for paper, glass etc. These are the “Needs ID” bins.
Then there’s a compost bin. This is for the captive/cultivated stuff. Sometimes it’s smelly and not everybody has use for it, but for the gardeners out there this stuff is gold.
A hazardous waste disposal team that takes care of picking up anything toxic that has been appropriately labeled (e.g. copyright violations etc).
And the remaining trash, such as non-recyclable plastics etc. (e.g. no photo/location), should go into the garbage can destined for the landfill.
Marking things that are not actually captive/cultivated as such because it takes a couple fewer steps is basically the equivalent of throwing plastics and other landfill waste into the compost bin because you can’t be bothered to walk over to the garbage can. It doesn’t belong there and will just render the compost worthless.
12 Likes
Agree. A DQA option for duplicates would save so much hassle for curators. Not everyone comments on a flag that the user has been informed of the duplicate, which is a really important detail, since users don’t see flags on their content, but they have a better (but not guaranteed) chance of seeing comments. So curators have to check each “duplicate” flag to see if the user has been (hopefully) alerted to the issue.
3 Likes
It’s possible I’m misremembering things, as I can’t find it now, either. I know I read that somewhere though…
I thought all Homo sapiens, human, were automatically marked Casual by iNat. But can’t find that either…
1 Like
They are, making it more of a reason not mark them captive - it’s pointless!
3 Likes
Yes, they are, once a community ID of human is reached. I’m guessing some identifiers get impatient if that takes 2-3 votes because of pre-existing non-human IDs.
1 Like
Ooh! I see!
Hadn’t considered this… I once suffered through a month of lousy internet speed before changing companies, and it was a miserable experience. All my sympathy!
1 Like
I agree.
Adding a duplicate is an error by the observer.
Incorrectly marking DQA is an error by the IDer.
Does it really make sense to “fix” one error by making another?
4 Likes
probably the Artificial Stupidity ID’d this