Thank you so much for listening to us and I am very pleased with Ken-ichi’s decision to revert the change.
I’ll add my thanks for listening.
I was one of those attempting to curate a fairly high-level taxon at national level because it is my area of research. Agreeing with a previous determination provided the benefit that if somebody disagreed with my determination of X I would be notified. Then I would go back to those records and add more detail about why I agreed with the determination of X but don’t agree with the newly added determination Y. I can’t do that for every identification. Not being aware of these ‘Y’ records can result in correct records being lost as RG, or worse, incorrectly identified records becoming RG. The latter usually because of some systematic misunderstanding. It is those systematic misidentifications that lead people to suggest Y rather than X, and then other people agree with them, for the same reason. So, overall quality will decrease, at least from my perspective. Like others I’m not saying the change is a bad thing. Blind agreement by some users is a big problem. But it would have changed the way I interact with iNat, and my use of the data for research.
Let me just say that I appreciate both:
- iNat’s willingness to experiment with potentially controversial changes and
- openness to feedback and reversion on said changes.
This is always hard in places with big, established user communities, and I’ve seen it handled much worse.
Super appreciate the willingness of staff to hear users’ concerns on this.
While I’m one of those that feel removing the agree button was a negative change, I also definitely respect users who feel that there are problems with gamification, and RG observations with incorrect ID’s supported by a bunch of incorrect agrees are also an obvious problem. There’s obviously community support for addressing this, and, based on all the comments and forum activity, many people have been thinking a LOT about this over the weekend. I am wondering what the best way is to take all of the ideas and thoughts and maybe coalesce them around some changes supported by the community that could address these issues? To sound hippyish (in a good way), is there a way to take all this energy (some negative), and spin it into positive engagement?
As an example, I was wondering if it might be appropriate to make a wiki post of potential changes that could address some of these issues, like a community brainstorm sesh? I have seen so many ideas floated in comments that I can’t keep track, and a bunch of feature requests seems like it would be confusing. Maybe a post like that could be seen by staff who have a much better idea of how feasible/implementable changes might be. Are there any low-hanging fruit we are missing?
A few examples rattling around in my brain:
I’ve heard folks complain about getting too many agreeing notifications (I confess I don’t understand why turning these off which is already possible isn’t a good solution, but…).
Potential solution: Offering more fine-grained control over notifications (like a setting that says, only notify me of identifications that change an observation’s RG status in either direction).
@bouteloua also mentioned that new users sometimes feel overwhelmed with agree notifications (and unlike “power-users” may not know where to find notification controls).
Potential solution: Change the account defaults so users don’t get agree notifications (or combine with defaulting to the option above, so they only get notified on agrees that affect their observations’ statuses).
Or to address one of the biggest agree problems (the reflexive Agree of the original observer to another user’s ID suggestion): remove the Agree button for the original observer only! (not sure how much god-like power staff has over the Agree button).
Maybe some or all of these have already been put forward, considered, and/or rejected, but I’m sure other users have lots of creative, targeted ideas on this topic that might be useful to have “out there”.
Anyways, thanks again for listening!
This is coming, see Tony’s post here
I think this is really problematic, and it concerns me when people mention it.
For me for example, at times I have actively posted at genus, with an idea of species… but wanted to wait for an expert to chip in before taking it that far. If I went straight to species, my concern would be that one of the non-experts would confirm and it would be taken out of the Needs ID pool without real review.
As an observer, I think this just straitjackets the OP in a weird way…
Its also fine maybe for birds, but terrible for less attended taxa and locations.
Why is nobody considering simply making the withdraw button more visible instead?
(I suggested a connected feature request before I read this… )
Isn’t this issue all partly a question of OPs simply not knowing what to do?
But I agree, an assimilated wiki and connected conversation shifting this towards positive change would be lovely to see.
Agreed! This has been encouraging to see.
I’m sure that when the iNat crew saw this thread getting so many lengthy response so quickly that their stomachs sank a bit! I think it’s actually a positive though. To have so many users so invested in the platform. The users know that the developers actually care about their opinions and will hear them out. I was tempted to post earlier, but then had trouble just keeping up with reading all the responses. Many others have already expressed my thoughts for the most part.
I’ve gone back and forth on the idea of adding confirming ids to observations that were already research grade. At first I didn’t even look at research grade obs, until I stumbled across quite a few that were misidentified. Then I figured that if I was going to look at them anyways I might as well add an id even if it was just confirming. It would provide some protection for future id changes and notify me if it happens. But, then I realized that sends out those annoying notifications unless people have changed their settings. It also makes me climb the identifier leaderboard of a given taxa, and people might think that was my goal. I agree that just marking as reviewed instead of agreeing is not ideal for reasons already stated, but I started to do it most of the time anyways.
I still use the agree button a lot though because my process is to filter for needs id, and a single species in a range. Then I either agree or correct, annotate, and then switch to a different species… then filter to the genus, family, etc. I find it much quicker that way and I am much less likely to make a mistake when I can look at the majority of the observations while only thinking of one species at a time. I’m sure that’s not how the experts do it though. If I didn’t do it some of those observations would sit around for weeks or months. I know as a newbie I was excited to get the input of others quickly. The non-experts among us can handle the easier ids to clear them so that the hard core experts can key out the more difficult ones. The agree button helps a lot with those quick but easy ids.
If people are using the agree button just to climb the leaderboards, then I agree that those types of agreements just shouldn’t go towards your id count. If more than say three people already made that id, the subsequent identifiers can still add an id, but it won’t add to their count on leaderboards or prominently display their name and icon. It could just say “x more people agreed.”
Just to be clear, I’m not proposing taking away the ability to change an ID to agree, just not having the Agree button appear in this sitation (as was done for all RG observations over the weekend).
The OP would still have the ability to change their ID to match other reviewers (I would definitely not want to take that away). They would just need to do it “manually” by entering the species name, again taking an extra 5-10 seconds. I think this could be desirable as observers would need to think briefly about the ID rather than just reflexively clicking agree.
This isn’t super high on my personal wishlist, was just throwing it out as a potential option to address some of the concerns around usage of the Agree button. Maybe it’s a bad idea!
Ahh i see, misunderstood. :)
Yes, I could also imagine this could be beneficial… especially in addition to a visible withdraw button
Without a withdraw button, it would worry me that the original ID would be simply left to languish, taking longer / involving more IDs to resolve a single observation.
Yeah, I think that sounds interesting. I know I’ve been guilty of doing that on occasion, and maybe a tiny bit more friction would encourage me to leave the observation stand until a second party confirms it.
Wow, so I’m guessing this will get lost in the general “agree” comments, but is there someway that the ability to use < !-- – > to provide invisible text can be restored? It’s a minor thing, but I had some basic formats and notes hidden in some of my guides when those segments weren’t ready yet. I’ve went back, found several, and deleted them, but it’s a bit of a pain to do so and it’s useful to be able to hide the new stuff while I’m reformatting an old guide.
<!-- --> seems to work in observation comments, but then your problem occurs while:
i thought that guides were no longer supported… so if they won’t fix things there, then if you’re just working with text, you could always insert it into a sketchy attribute tag on a random html tag. i think iNat strips those out for security reasons. for example:
blah <!-- test -->blah
then try this:
blah <img onclick="test test test"/>blah
this won’t solve the problem of having to find existing cases of
<!-- --> though.
Thank you iNat staff for listening and reverting the change.
I will say I am disappointed there was no sincere apology to the community for the aggravation and frustration your actions caused.
Even if staff feels they are correct and only changed because of pressure from the userbase (which is the feeling I am getting from the comments from staff) it’s important for all of us to acknowledge and apologize for our own actions that have caused other people to put forth more work.
I also hope staff truly seriously takes a critical eye to their own thoughts and actions and dig deep to determine why they were so completely mis-aligned with the expectation of the userbase. That’s the only way personal and professional growth happens.
Oh, come on. iNat staff tested something out for a couple days, got some blowback (a bit over the top in many cases, I might add), and they reversed it. Hardly a major crisis requiring a personal reassessment of anyone’s life or actions. I give them credit for trying things that might help correct existing problems with the site, even if they ultimately fail to do so.
Interesting. It seems like it’s working now. Just so you know, most of the guides I have are in journal post format. Glad to have it back. I wasn’t looking forward to going through them all and removing the hidden text.
By the way, I’m really happy that the iNat team made it easier to format text. This will save me some time when I ever get back into creating guides for the site and should make it a lot easier for someone unfamiliar with HTML.
That’s your choice - I choose to live my life where I recognize and apologize publicly for my actions, even ones made unintentionally, that negatively impact others, and I will encourage that behavior in organizations I interact with.
iNaturalist is a free service. I don’t see why they should apologise for trying improve something they are giving us for nothing.
We have been thanked for our patience and feedback, and the negative impact acknowledged and mitigated.
I don’t feel anyone was over the top in their responses. When change happens or is desired, there is a need to speak up about it, and especially in these type of forums there is a need to make an important point heard above the background noise.
I would disagree with any methodology that attempts to make a user look absurd and find that counterproductive to the mission statement “our primary goal in operating iNaturalist is to connect people to nature, and by that we mean getting people to feel that the non-human world has personal significance, and is worth protecting.” If a person is just starting out (with birds for example) and is only confident with robins, cardinals, and mallards, their participation should be welcomed at that level. With encouragement and over time we all know that you can’t help but be drawn into expanding your horizons. Conversely, If you make them feel stupid, chances are you lose them as a contributor completely. It is the responsibility of those who “know” to help teach those who want to learn. My two cents for what it’s worth.