When doing science outreach, the goal is to foster people’s interest in science. The goal isn’t to turn every single participant into people who participate in science every day. When people participate in science outreach projects like CNC, some will choose to do more, but many will not. And that’s ok.
Keep in mind that the “official” identification phase of CNC didn’t start until April 28th. So there will be a stronger focus on adding IDs for the next two weeks. Scroll down on that page to see some tips how to to identify observations, if you have the time to do so.
Hi there,
We have a mandatory training for all organizers and continually reinforce the best ways to use iNaturalist over the months of planning. We shared some of our resources and communications here on the forum, but not every communication. There is always room for improvement and we will incorporate all of our learnings from this year into next year’s planning. Thanks so much for your engagement and your work to identify.
In addition, the ‘identification period’ runs from now until May 10th, so there is ALOT more time to identify. Thanks!
Don’t google that Diana - you don’t want to know
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/13/africa-last-polar-bear-wang-dies
you are a few years too late.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/29832783 and proof. Not my obs.
I do have bear’s paws male and female. Why anyone would see bears and paws ?!
Because of CNCs request, I went to look specifically at the Unknowns in my region. It was page after page of low-effort images not worth attempting an ID on. That seems like the lowest-value use of identifiers time. I think the CNC folks would be more appreciated if they suggested investing identifier time on activities that require their expertise and that result in greater engagement by new participants brought in by CNC.
the vast majority of my observations take place in cities; i’ve got something like 900 species around DFW which is a pretty major metro.
I have not seen a single communication from CNC organizers telling identifiers that they should should focus on identifying unknowns rather than other types of identifying.
De facto many people may do so, either because they are not taxon specialists or because it is a way to ensure that observations can contribute to species counts for their city. They may also take the time to pick through unknowns because providing feedback to new users who may not know that they should add an ID to observations is a good way to increase the likelihood that they will stick around and add better observations in the future. Not all unknowns are low-quality images (higher-quality unknowns get an ID faster and thus cease to be unknowns). Not all observations uploaded with an ID are high-quality images.
I thought that was a joke… But yes that was a captive one not a wild polar bear. Still wondering how it survived in that zoo.
To be honest I think the Hemiptera barely fits the diversity of the group. Hemisphaeriini will look like ladybeetles (The observer was convinced it was a lady beetle), Bardunia angustinaso looks like a weevil, Dermoflata rotundata looks superficially similar to a leaf (even has a fake midrib), This leafhopper nymph looks like a jumping spider (not certain about the current genus ID but it is a leafhopper), Jewel bugs (with their scutellums that cover their wings till the tip of the abdomen) looks too beetle-ish, and scale insects look like fungi.
Either or both.
Almost all the observations I submit are made locally; at most, I travel within my city on public transportation, to which I already have a subscription. It wouldn’t make much sense to me to burn kerosene just to fly and try to map biodiversity, especially in places where I know little about the species, and therefore risk only disturbing them, producing observations that are even less significant than those I produce in my area (only 57% of mine have reached research level).
After all, most users aren’t professionals.
If iNat, outside of a few targeted bioblitzes, promoted large-scale activities to map biodiversity that negatively contribute to climate change, it would be a paradox for me, and I would begin to view the entire initiative negatively.
The advantage of a platform like iNat is that its users are already distributed across the globe, and it seems to me the CNC’s goal is to involve even more. Observation activities, if conducted in parallel with one’s own activities/business travel, do not produce additional greenhouse gases; it’s a smart way to use the internet.
I don’t know about that.
I can see someone reaching out to me because I might have a badge for a decent # of IDs on my profile, but most of mine are just coarse IDs to move observations out of unknown, which would lead to frustration from anyone contacting me for assistance.
They are useful for finding someone to contact for assistance, sometimes.
I’ve used it (sparingly!) for contacting experts for disagreements, Geralds, etc.
Then again, I ended up on both leaderboards for observations & IDs for genus podagrion merely because it was underrepresented at the time (there were 11 total observations at that time, 4 of which were mine 
), so it isn’t always reliable for that either.
Gerald??? From where did he end up here?
Yes, that kinda never happens. I am a different sort of identifier, one of those who is specialised on a single group of organisms. For me making ids of something not yet on iNat is so common that I had to make a list on my journal just to keep track.
This happens sometimes. I thought I were about to look at a damselfly when I were searching it, but it was a bee. (There are tons of damselflies named like Coenagrion, Ceriagrion etc.)
it is most important to produce more people who care about the nature around them. for which they need to be aware and appreciative of it in the first place, which is a purpose that CNC achieves.
Well, it would help if new observers were shown how to take a half-decent snap; most of the CNC obs that I have been trying to identify are totally unviable and will remain unidentified for eternity. Except that thousands are tagged, by multiple ‘identifiers’, simply as Subphylum Angiospermae! What is the point of that? Perhaps to rack up the obs count, as mere artifice.
The point is to take the observations out of unknown so that identifiable unknowns do not get lost among the thousands of observations that are unlikely to be ID’d further. If a second person agrees to the angiosperm ID of the observations that you believe are hopeless, they can be made casual by using the DQA “ID cannot be improved”. Users who add IDs in such cases are not incompetent, nor are they merely trying to increase their identification counts.
In defence of the iNat staff, they did recently (2026 March) host a webinar about plant ID. Now, one problem is, I can hardly think of anything that new users are less likely to do, than spend an hour studying plant ID and photography. So if you have a better idea, Peter, please share it!