I think in most cases it’s decided manually on a case-by-case basis by curators (a process anyone can initiate by flagging the species page), rather than automatically by conservation status. So yeah this can be a problem if there’s a sensitive species and no one on iNat is aware of the issue or takes the initiative to get it auto-obscured.
3 Likes
I actually looked into mycological societies, knowing that mushroom field guides are inadequate. The nearest NAMA-affiliated group is nearly three hours’ drive. Or, on Meetup, there is a non-NAMA affiliated group two hours’ drive away. Nothing nearby that I’ve been able to find.
4 Likes
Yes, there are taxa that are obscured even without a status level that would lead to automatic obscuration. Users start a conversation by flagging the taxon, laying out their reasoning for obscuration, and, ideally, linking to some sources. This happens reasonably frequently. In some cases, taxa are only obscured in specific areas where there are threats, etc.
Likewise, there are many cases where species are threatened but not due to collecting/poaching/disturbance, and obscuration is removed as it doesn’t provide a clear benefit.
3 Likes
That’s really interesting – thanks for sharing!
2 Likes
TIME will fix this. You can’t persuade reluctant people, but over time, they will either age out or come to see the advantages of iNat. This is something that will have to emerge as iNat continues to proves its utility and as the community adjusts to its advantages and disadvantages.
Much of the natural history world is still trapped in the past. Not the 20th century, but the 19th. We are still cranking out paper field guides that are obsolete before they can be published (and then they go out of print). Most natural history web sites are awful.
Consider that iNaturalist has actually gained significance extremely rapidly. Of course there are going to be some holdouts. And in recognition of their caution, we shouldn’t assume that iNat is complete—there are things that should be addressed, there are likely problems that haven’t manifested yet, and conventions and use cases are still evolving.
Ultimately, the Network Effect, the concept that the utility of a service increases as more people uses it, is going to force people into use of iNaturalist. They will find that they are excluded from projects or don’t get as much attention, participation or utility, if they don’t use it.
iNat is rapidly becoming a criticism scientific infrastructure. I hope it’s prepared for this degree of public trust.
11 Likes
There is no conflict in loving iNat and good FB or other prudent groups. Rather, in some aspects (say count), I felt that it would hv beeen better if they were here also. In few aspects I diifer with the guidelines also as every aspects are not be dealt equally all over the world in all situation (my personal opinion). Anyway, INaturalist has grown up and now has gone up to the Top position in it’s category ‘Naturally’ on the basis of its own exceptional qualities. IMO iNaturalist doesn’t require my effirts for it’s defence.
1 Like
7 posts were merged into an existing topic: Print and Digital Field Guides - Pros and Cons
I don’t know what that means. Can you explain?
Or if you get motion sickness from scrolling. If anything is out of date in my books, I write corrections in them.
1 Like
Criticism = mistype of critical, from context
1 Like
I 
your answer, Jay!
iNaturalist today is like cars in 1910.
There were plenty of “horse people” back then — farriers, horse vets, etc. – who were skeptical of cars. They called them noisy, polluting, and dangerous. While those concerns were true, the “horse people” couldn’t stop the trend. Today, we don’t ride horses for transportation.
The “horse people” of today — taxonomists, museum curators, and various “-ologists” — who resist iNaturalist are facing a similar shift. They can choose to fade away with the horses, or they can embrace the future! 
1 Like
I view this one as a feature, not a bug. :)
In the end, iNat (or something like it) will be inextricably linked to new processes that displace old ones. The experts here now are very committed to egalitarianism which is really nice. I’d be willing to bet, this taxonomist would have been intrigued by specific projects whose administrators perform some level of gatekeeping on observations that are then reviewed by more talented id’ers. Explaining the identification filtration capabilities to that taxonomist might have won them over. e.g. You don’t have to ID everything, you could only ID observations added to this specific project by this specific expert. You could provide these IDs as an anonymous user whose real identity is only revealed to that project’s administrator.
It’s also incredibly easy to set up a discord server or some means of communication that’s apart from the observations and includes only those people invited in by the expert & project administrator. Maybe some experts in taxonomy aren’t experts in how specific software applications can support their chosen level of accessibility.
5 Likes
I don’t understand why at least a basic standard won’t be set for in this site (uploading Clear Pictures, Iding etc). Gate-keeping? In my opinion gatekeeping is indeed a bare minimum requirement for a system, preservation as well as conservation of Nature.
I re-opened an existing topic about printed vs. digital field guides and moved posted related to that there as best I could, although there are still some fragments here.
1 Like
Certainly some places should have standards for the people involved or material submitted! I like to consult websites that present only good quality photos that are reviewed for correct identification!
However, there is also value in places that try to find the useful information hidden among poor quality photos or submitted by people who have no clue what they’re looking at. I wouldn’t want every on-line nature resource to be like iNaturalist but I’m very glad it is so accepting.
5 Likes
Hidden point of concern is not actually clear photos. Something like origin of such photos (other than those u specified). That was only my thought for defending iNat (if helpful, otherwise may be ignored grossly. No issues). Bounded by some guidelines. I can’t clarify more.
1 Like
I’m going to be honest in saying that I find this line of reasoning unnecessarily combative and frankly inaccurate. I believe that iNaturalist is undoubtedly a powerful tool, but the idea that it is somehow going to succeed taxonomists, natural history museums, or as you put it “ologists” as a whole, is not accurate. The value of museum collections and taxonomists has never been higher, and iNaturalist’s occurrence records and community ID system are just plain and simply not substitutes for either. That doesn’t mean it’s worse. It just serves a different purpose. I don’t mean any offense, but I sincerely hope that no skeptics whose expertise could benefit the platform end up encountering posts using this framework or language.
12 Likes
I think people not involved with collections don’t realize how enthusiastically curators, collection managers, etc., have embraced the opportunity to make their collections and associated materials available on-line. Just for plants of the Pacific coast of North America, you can take a look at SEINET (a gateway to Symbiota; try the map search!), the Oregon Flora Project, CalFlora and Jepson Interchanges (different ways to access the California data), the Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria, and the E-Flora BC, plus some individual herbaria. Some of these websites are more user-friendly than others and they differ in what they present, but all of them have good data and make it freely available. I expect improvements will continue.
Traditional studies of morphology (and now molecules) remain essential for understanding biodiversity, and that need will never really end. That’s the basic, often disparaged, background research needed to figure out the names and classification used by, for example, iNaturalist.
iNaturalist is different from these resources. It’s huge, faster moving, full of great data that has to be separated from lots of chaff, sometimes unpredictable. Some people have been slow to grasp the value of photos as vouchers (not helped by the very poor quality of some photos on iNaturalist). The gaming and social media aspects can make iNaturalist seem less serious than it is but help draw in more individuals with more to contribute. The egalitarian approach to authority here takes some getting used to and can be initially off-putting. Even now, I have moments of thinking, “Don’t you know I know this?” when somebody challenges me about one of the taxa I know really well. Then I take a deep breath and remember that if I’m really doing science, I need to be willing to explain why. (My tolerance is increased because, well, sometimes I’m wrong.) And remember that traditional taxonomic research and curation of collections both take time. (A fact that too many university administrators overlook!) Recently I asked for help from a local insect expert doing traditional taxonomy. He responded that he thinks iNaturalist is a great venue and wished he could help but he just doesn’t have time right now. I can respect that. (Also, it reminds me to avoid calling too much on the taxon experts who are willing to look at the occasional observation.)
Too much babbling. I’d better get back to writing a traditional dichotomous identification key to a group of sedges. I love iNaturalist but traditional keys are also useful for identification.
18 Likes
Yes! My knowledge of Insects particularly, has grown greatly in these past several years of posting to iNaturalist! I am, however, sometimes dismayed at how off and un-intelligent the AI , most often with Fauna. …even with GOOD photos. I boost iNat to anyone who will listen…I Love It!
1 Like
Agreed. INat will not replace the need for physical specimens but photo records with good data can supplement the info that specimens provide.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.