We also have this project, where we use obs fields
https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/habitats-s-afr
but those are obs of a sp, ordinary iNat obs. Nearly 2 million.
Thanks for the anecdata information that looks interesting .
would making it easier for people to post pictures into project journals be a good idea .
1 Like
Serious question then - every time I run into a landscape photo, should I be flagging it? Because that then transfers all the work to you guys. There are not usually specific accounts doing it, with a few exceptions. but that’s going to be a lot of flagging, and a lot of folks survey photos - in various areas of the world - are removed.
It’s annoying at best to deal with these, and I get that they take up server space, but people continue to upload these photos. Some with a label, most with none. I still would rather have a DQA to just one-click them away.
2 Likes
A workaround that was suggested - 2 people agree on ‘plants’ (if in the photo) then Good as can be = Casual. But a new DQA to Casual would be a better solution all round.
2 Likes
Without specific examples (feel free to share via DM) it’s hard to say. Some people join iNat and want to share a pretty picture of a landscape, usually not realizing that’s what iNat’s for. I wouldn’t flag that, but maybe add a comment letting them know that iNat observations record encounters with organisms, not habitats or landscapes, and either ID something in the photo if possible, or vote in the DQA. But if someone is systematically using iNat as a survey tool for landscapes and not for organisms, then I think flagging some to show the pattern is helpful.
3 Likes
I would mark it “Evidence of Organism: No” and leave a comment saying that if they indicate what in the photo they want identified, I’ll remove the flag. That removes it from the ID queue. In their other observations, they can still link to the landscape photo as supporting evidence. Ideally, they would post it on a photo sharing site and link their legitimate iNat observations to it there.
It’s the OP’s responsibility to choose what to ID. Ideally by making it the obvious subject of their photos. If I choose the subject of their photo, it robs them of their agency. This means that if they want some speck hidden in the leaves in the lower-left-hand corner of the photo identified, they need to say so in the description or comments.
That’s not what that DQA is for. That DQA is for things like rocks. There are organisms in the photo, but the photo isn’t set up to allow identification because it’s a landscape image.
I agree the observer has a responsibility to pinpoint what is to be identified. The problem is, many don’t and some are uploading landscape shots for various reasons. And, we do not have a DQA for it.
EDIT: examples of the “no evidence of organism” DQA I just used - (1) photo that might have been a landscape photo, but the subject was clearly a boulder. DQA proper. (2) photo that had a busted up stump, but the observer posted it only bc it looked “punk”, not to identify anything living in the stump or termites or anything. DQA proper. (3) photo of a nice waterfall landscape with vegetation and water. DQA not proper. If the photo had simply been of water, the DQA would be appropriate.
Can surely be ID’d as an Angiosperm
2 Likes
Tracheophyte in case it is a conifer
2 Likes