Hey. Viewpoint from arthropods - there’s a continual stream of often simplistic flags “please add this taxon” and deafening silence from the vast majority who have curator permissions, what gives?
3 Likes
I do a flag night like once a week to add a bunch of easy stuff. I could be more consistent. 
2 Likes
I have my hands full with a mollusk flag backlog. I do ungrafted taxa sometimes, but typically avoid insects as we don’t have a taxon framework for most and I don’t feel like finding the primary literature for those.
5 Likes
Thanks both. Please excuse // my words from exasperation. I appreciate your efforts and your viewpoints
1 Like
Are people still not providing links/citations with their flags for insects?
8 Likes
You can tag people in if you want something asap…or well, feel free to tag me in at least :)
But after a certain number of tags I usually just recommend to people that they apply to become a curator themselves - especially if frustrated by system.
EDIT - sorry - I see you are a curator… I didn’t realise…
Personally, unless tagged, I tend to just go through phases where I do a whole bunch in a taxon… then I do nothing for a while. My attention just shifts from one thing to another, in the same way as it does with regard to the taxon/location filters I choose to identify… and the taxa I choose to observe.
4 Likes
Maybe they are, but I don’t usually look at insect flags. I was just referring to the ungrafted taxon widget.
I see that the vast majority of flags are resolved by a surprisingly small number of people.
Will try and chip in this weekend :)
I can’t see myself / total flags resolved on the curators list…does that only show people who are most recently active?
How many curators actually exist on iNat?
How many have resolved over 1000 flags like OP?
5 Likes
My other question would be whether there are actually observations of the species that need to be ID’d or if people are asking to be completionist. Just looking at the recent flags asking for new species, several of them are just because the species was recently described.
6 Likes
I count 14
2 Likes
That does not always stop people from posting new requests for taxa without observations.
But I do usually ask if that is needed for ID of an observation if it looks like a request in order to have complete taxa. Could we perhaps have a required field for the flagger to link to an observation.
5 Likes
That’s a known bug. FWIW I can see you on the list.
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/im-missing-from-the-curator-section-of-the-people-page/11392
2 Likes
If that reply was towards me as the OP, then your offer then of direct support was great, something that i would hope that frustrated user would have welcomed to hear. However, as a fellow frustrated curator, well… :)
It is helpful to hear how you and other existing curators engage. I recognise the value of contributions from all who replied so far, and as for other discussion welcome the view of those who do not yet have curator permission. Letting users know they can apply to make curation updates themselves was also a helpful reply here.
In my context, i tend to filter all flags down to just those on the ‘content type: Taxon’ then limit it further e.g. to “Arthropoda”, “Insecta” or some focal subgroup. My issue here was frustration at yet another day when a new hoard of likely ‘easily resolvable’ flags were opened, but not quickly addressed. Adding a taxon at best can take about 30 seconds right? Yet for some, the drift for days unresolved, some into weeks, if not lost in system far longer.
On this (and later lines) plus replies. Well, indeed that’s the essence of my ‘exasperation’ yesterday. I’m currently acutely aware of the absence or lesser engagement from a handful of curators for the flagged issues of my limited range (i.e. taxonomy - arthropods), so even just one or two curators disengaging tips the balance. What was gradually a diminishing backlog of flagged issues then again start to accumulate. That then negatively affects i want to engage, not being able to see any pathway to counteract the deluge. Maybe i should just stop tracking the backlog - because i don’t see staff being concerned by it, and i’m not being paid to do anything about it etc!
Else for the “curators list” [https://www.inaturalist.org/people] with number of flags resolved, etc. Again, in my context, i see counts of number of flags resolved as a limited metric - some flags can take an age to resolve (or some approximation) whilst others take mere seconds. Actually, i’d really prefer to focus on those that drift for weeks or months as unresolved, often because the scale of the problem being opened then is best done with a broad view of literature, multiple discussions, external updates etc. I’d rather invest my efforts in those - but then those plus a deluge of easy flags … urgh.
Anyway, for the “curators list”. I really wish iNat would overhaul that, and thanks to thomaseverest for linking to at least one of several other places i’ve seen discussion about it. I’d really love to see a modern listing of curators with that then having some functional value. For example, allowing anyone to subsort who is recently active, and who is interested in taxonomy of certain taxa and doesn’t mind being notified by tags, who is interested in taxonomy but instead wants to just quietly work on their focal taxa wit minimal or no disturbance, who just wants their curation to be other community moderation, etc, etc.
Then, with a smile, if we can’t have any of those things updated, at very least i’d also like to know how dear alberto_colatore is listed as having “12147 flags resolved” but at backend it looks like just about 1050 flags ;) He’s still a welcome member of the 1K+ club, and i eat my words if i got that count badly wrong!
@thomaseverest If you’ve been moving ungrafted arthropods etc then thank-you. I see your great efforts in those molluscs and think you’re doing a really valuable contribution. If in future you’re overwhelmed with a flood of seemingly easy flags (like from big new papers and ideally already updated on Molluscabase etc), then call in the calvary.
6 Likes
Moving on, it was nice to see tiwane asking this.
On a new flag request, it currently says [Comment] “Add an optional comment to this flag that further explains why you are adding it and provides links to supporting evidence.” and “Flags that cite a source are more likely to be resolved quickly by our volunteer curators.”
I’d ask that staff need to assess this, rather than open question about some vague impression. For this, i’d say that the number of flags a user has made is a factor, maybe even over what time range. Here i mean i think maybe that extra wording has been good for encouraging a bit more at the outset from users who never made curation a flag before, or rarely make flags. But, at least for taxonomy, i think then “regular flaggers” become familiar with a subset of curators, maybe both sides then get lazy with familiarity. Here my mind is on select users who are currently making a regular stream of taxonomy requests - and usually it’s less than a handful of curators who have repeatedly resolved their issues. But, then another curator comes in who maybe has been on a long break, or just more casual curation, then see’s the lack of any context on new requests from the user. Unfortunately, i think that user requests come in batches, e.g. a few weeks or months with many requests, then nothing for an age. Same often with curator engagement. Anyway, such wording above needs to be vague as it is - but i wonder if could be improved, i think it’s a general statement for all flags right? It doesn’t hint at anything specifically for taxonomy.
I added some context comments for my perspective on this to @upupa-epops tagged earlier today on some flagged taxa (both spiders i think), those were flags for additions of newly described species. [https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/812002 Link for one of the flags - 812002]
I think issue about “are there relevant observations” has value (that’s another users interpretation of wording not mine), and, however phrased, I see asking a user about observations then can provide curators with valuable feedback to know why a user is making a seemingly simple request (for a missing taxon name). Firstly then, let’s notice that the above text presented to a user (when they open a new flag) says nothing about any desire nor need to highlight any observation. Perhaps, something could be expanded to say e.g. “For taxonomy requests, please highlight any relevant iNat observations of the taxon, and any recent literature or databases that use the name in that format”
Extra wording for taxonomy issues may encourage users to give even more context to their request at outset might be helpful. On this, in past I saw that some more casual or transient curators saying they don’t want to add taxa they’re unfamiliar with - but if the user gives a better lead in for justification, then such curators may have more willingness to go outside their comfort zone (i.e. curator beyond their focal taxon or geographic scope). Many times, the person requesting can be the expert - such as publishing the study the taxon is named in. But, on this then, after an initial request, it seems commonplace that a requester will never reply - or at best months later. They may not get notification, miss it, or just move on with their lives. So, from what i’ve seen asking the requester for more input after the initial request is often a lost cause.
Well, whatever, i’d say issue of “we try to add taxa as they are observed” urgently needs better central guidance from staff. Personally, if a requested taxon (missing name) doesn’t have an observation (or equally if a user doesn’t reply to a question about that), then to me it reads like an open path about whether a curator chooses to add a requested name or not.
The main bit of central guidance i saw from staff is this text on iNatHelp [https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/articles/151000014391-section-a-how-to-respond-to-a-flag-requesting-to-add-a-new-taxon Step 1: Make sure only …]
= “Generally, we try to add taxa as they are observed or individually requested to avoid having the complexity of maintaining empty branches. If a flag is requesting many species at once, comment and clarify whether there are already observations of all those species.”
To my view, that’s open wording, “Generally, we try” etc. I would suggest go further, for example also with “as they are observed” to something more open to “if they are observable”. Here, as cherry picked hypothetical, e.g. a deer that is a newly described species from only a particular mountain range in USA is far more observable than a biting-midge described a century ago from a forest canopy somewhere in the African Congo basin!
As for the “to avoid having the complexity of maintaining empty branches”. For me, I’d suggest a large fraction of recently described taxa might be considered to be observable - the new descriptions give diagnostics, whether those diagnostics are workable in given photo observations or not is another question entirely. I’d love to hear what the staff view is behind the logic of that phrase. I yet did not hear about any persuasive computational burden on having an ‘empty name’ added. I do however understand if that’s speaking to potential curatorial burden, e.g. the name might need swapping as a synonym in future etc. If it’s just that, it’s a price i’m willing to pay. To my view many recently described taxa are described to high modern standards - but yes, sometimes later the name turns out to be a junior synonym of an older name. It was ever thus. If that’s indeed the curatorial burden - making swaps and regrafting after insights from future studies, then i ask who’s doing that burden? Here’s a case in point, yesterday, i was making taxon edits on the butterfly genus Graphium. It’s a genus with about 100 species. Yet, here on iNat, there’s a further 70 of so names presented as “species” that seem never to have been published at species level. All instead refer to described subspecies, forms or variants. Around a decade ago, there were multiple databases that seem to have been careless exchanging some mock ‘taxon names’ that had been either carelessly input or corrupted by automated processes. Then, those were imported by automated system to iNat, and while for many other butterflies similar cases have gradually been ‘cleaned out’, there’s that load for Graphium that seem to have been neglected ever since. I glance around the room and smile. So, who’s going to to be cleaning up the rest of those?
2 Likes
he’s listed as having 12,147 flags resolved as that’s exactly how many he’s resolved
https://www.inaturalist.org/flags?commit=Filter&deleted=any&flaggable_type=all&flagger_name=&flagger_type=any&flagger_user_id=&flags[]=spam&flags[]=copyright+infringement&flags[]=artificially+generated+content&flags[]=inappropriate&flags[]=other&page=1&reason_query=&resolved=yes&resolver_name=alberto_colatore&resolver_user_id=alberto_colatore&taxon_id=&taxon_name=&user_id=&user_name=&utf8=✓
4 Likes
Gladly then i eat my words, plus my hat plus anything else i need to apologise to them! Herculean effort from them!
(I see now, i did not have “spam, copyright, AI” selected for their efforts, mia culpa!)
4 Likes
I have seen staff say a couple times that particular features put a load on the servers (e.g. sorting observations into places, or sorting observations through multiple ranks of taxa). I don’t have a good enough understanding of computer technology to know which features result in more or less strain; I only know abstractly that having more things on iNat means more computer resources are needed.
It may be that the future curatorial effort if taxonomy changes is a bigger concern (certainly if many species without any observations were moved from one genus to another it would be frustrating to update). And this applies not only to future curatorial effort but also to the current issue in question; if users get used to the idea that the iNat taxonomy should be complete and all described species should be added then it results in many more flags asking for species to be added which don’t really need to be added.
Yes resolving copyright flags for deleted content is a good way to boost the flag count. (I did that for a little bit.)
Have you tried recruiting any new curators? I was feeling overwhelmed with the mollusks and ended up getting three other users to successfully apply to be curators. I haven’t checked to see how much they have helped the overall load, but it was very encouraging to reach out and have other people want to help.
3 Likes
To answer the direct question of the thread sincerely:
It’s of course a mix of things. I have less time for iNat now than when I became a curator. I mostly focus my curating on specific taxa and assume that other curators are dealing with other taxa (while being aware that’s often not the case). And also I see the list of new flags on the main dashboard but it’s almost always copyright/inappropriate flags on observation images, so I rarely see flags that I can easily help with without going out of my way to look for them. I’m sure the same reasons are true for many curators.
The main way I look for flags is by casually browsing taxa that I’m interested in and looking at active flags on their taxon pages. Sometimes if there’s a confusing tangle of flags I’ll filter on the flags page for a higher taxon, and then if I see easy species requests there I’ll add them. But my search process usually leads to me finding more long-term flags where a discussion has been stalled for months without much activity and needs to be bumped, rather than ones like these that are easy to fix.
3 Likes
I guess this also comes back to different curators signing up for different things.
And the need for there to be delineated roles.
I love to help out when I come across a need in my identification or in my own obs.
I have zero interest or ability in dealing with antisocial users etc. And I confess I have no idea how to deal with the artificially generated content, copyright flags, etc.
Aren’t the copyright ones just meant to be left as is if they are a breach?
If already deleted then we resolve?
Maybe a dedicated filter for adding taxa in the flag list UI would help too.
I feel they just get a bit lost in the sea of other flags some of which are far more difficult to resolve. Alternatively or in addition, it would be great to be able to filter for flags by number of comments - be easier to pick off the simple/unaddressed ones. I think the UI there and the limited filter options are part of why I tend to work more on flags/curatorial issues I come across day to day.
Regardless, i have resolved a few more these last days following this post…and will try and tune in a bit more than I have to all this.
2 Likes