Disappointing consistent failure: users not marking observations as cultivated

[kiwifergus]

Are you intentionally mis-quoting me?

@je9h

Casual observations do not have to be deprived of IDs.

I said:
“they shouldn’t be deprived of the ID assistance that “needs ID” can give”

@je9h

(To imply in the same sentence that they are being denigrated says that you do think there is something wrong with the Research Grade distinction… a bit unclear.)

Not what I am saying at all. In fact it is the complete opposite. I am saying that they SHOULDN’T be denigrated at all, regardless of what they are called. If being a wild observation is a criteria for RG, and iNat would like a nudge in the direction of observing more wild stuff than captive/cultivated, then I am saying “by all means, reward those observations with a cool fancy name like Research Grade”, just don’t let that foster people turning their noses up at the casual observations! Start from a position that is inclusive, and allow those that want to be selective the opportunity to do so.

Think about how the following statements “sound”:

“Only 5 of your 100 observations met the criteria for Research Grade”
and
“You made 100 observations and 5 of them met the criteria for Research Grade”

Here it is not the term “Research Grade” that denigrates, but the word “Only”. To me it is not about the name, but how we use it… and you can change the name to whatever you like, but it will be used in the same way…

@je9h

Anyway, I agree that most Casual postings were likely made in the hopes of getting an ID, and the selection process I described is one way by which an iNat participant can help with ID’ing those observations.

The selection process you described is exactly the problem. All new iNat users start from a default position of “filter out the captive/cultivated stuff” from the Identify pages. As an example, lets say there are 100 new iNat users, 5 of whom only ever want to see wild stuff, and 5 who would actively like to see captive/cultivated stuff, the rest are in the “just show me stuff, I don’t care what” category. Presently, for the 5 to see captive/cultivated stuff, they have to turn ON, or OPT-IN … which they do in this example. So now we have 5 identifiers out of 100 that are going to see any observation put up by someone wanting to know what a cultivated plant is, and wild observations have a 100 out of 100 Identifier pool. The pool of identifiers for captive/cultivated is extremely low. Lets take the reverse situation, the opposite of what you are encouraging… Every new identifier is default OPTED-IN for captive/cultivated, and the 5 that only want to see wild stuff OPT-OUT. Now the Identifier pool for wild observations is 100 out of 100 identifiers and the Identifier pool for captive/cultivated is 95 out of 100 identifiers.

Just to be clear, I was only clarifying my personal position because I was contesting the validity of a point that was made in favour of my position. I just didn’t want anyone to mis-quote me as being against inclusion of captive/cultivated! Mis-quoting seems to happen in this forum far too often!

[je9h]

The only instance in which I quoted you is in the second paragraph of my comment. It’s the part that is in quotation marks.

[kiwifergus]

@je9h

The only instance in which I quoted you

Fair call, I apologise. Let’s call it a mis-paraphrase then

[Star3]

@cmcheatle

In order for this to work, someone still needs to set the flag. If a significant number of users (lets face it there are few if any identifiers who are interested in looking at these) turn it off, it just pushes the flagging down to fewer and fewer people, which creates a vicious circle as those fewer and fewer people get increasingly frustrated at the volume of them they see.

I know I’m responding a bit late, but I somehow missed this reply.
I wasn’t saying we shouldn’t flag captive/cultivated organisms. We absolutely should flag them! :)

I was just saying flagging them as “not wild” shouldn’t remove them from “Needs ID”.

[jbecky]

It’s hard to get people interested in nature if you’re not interested in the nature that’s important to them. Some people live in environments where they never see a wild plant or animal and the cultural default action on seeing most insects is to kill them.

I try to help ID anything, even if it’s obviously a potted plant, their pet fish, or a lobster in a tank at a restaurant. I think it’s respectful and an appropriate use of my time for new users. Besides, I formed an opinion looking at at, so I might as well share. Then I just vote not wild and move on.

Except when I don’t. When I see something interesting that looks cultivated, I sometimes give it my best shot and then use the Frequently Used Responses text to gently remind them but withhold my vote. Especially if it’s in my hometown where I see things that are probably native species bought at garden centers and want to know what they are, because we have a big native gardening movement here. That gives the observation a little chance of getting an ID. Casual and unidentified observations do tend to fall into a pit. And I believe that discourages users.

I save my annoyance for the mega-observers who have tens of thousands of observations and can’t be bothered to say plant, animal, or fish. THEY bother me.

[tonycullen]

Hello everyone! New to this forum (and thread) but not iNaturalist. @erwin_pteridophilos asked me to contribute to this thread a month ago, and I am finally getting around to it now (sorry Erwin). I really respect all of the folks who take the time to do the IDing. I imagine it is a thankless job at times and frustrating to see the same issues over and over again. I am not going to comment on ways to solve the wild/cultivated/captive as it has been covered much more thoroughly and with greater insight than I could provide.

Rather, I have a perspective that I haven’t heard fully voiced after reading through this thread. iNaturalist is a really valuable tool for educators. I have used iNaturalist for Bioblitzes and student projects. I like that I can set project parameters or add required content for observations for each project I create. Most students enjoy working with iNaturalist as the interface is very user-friendly, and it provides a wonderful alternative to more traditional methods of teaching and learning. It also offers them a path forward to engage in a field that they might not have had access to. For some students, this is the first authentic experience in science and nature they may have had. If I can reach 4 out of 40 students and get them engaged for me that is worth it. I do my best to guide them to the types of IDs that are valuable, but you always have some students not putting in the work and creating unusable content.

However, I am frustrated to find out that marking captive/cultivated almost ensures you won’t get an ID. I understand the desire to improve the quality of the data on iNaturalist, but I fear we alienate many users who interface with the site in a more casual manner and would just like an ID. If we only value the high-quality data we will only have a site of “serious” naturalist and miss expanding the tent and bring everyone along. I believe, iNaturalist is designed to help people connect with nature, however, they define it. Google iNaturalist, search in your app store, or just look at the iNaturalist page, and this becomes abundantly clear. I expect most users don’t get to the DQA’s and only have a familiarity with the website represented in the images below.

Heck, even the welcome to this forum says ID’s are for iNaturalist.

People that use this app have that expectation. They assume, like I did, that they will get an ID regardless of how they designate the observation. @DianaStuder, @Star3, and @jbecky talk about this. How it should be for everyone, no one with a casual relationship with the app/website would ever know that as soon as you mark something as captive/cultivated, it removes it from needs ID pool (I didn’t), and it makes it hard to be inclusive when you narrow the requirements to participate.

Everything else about the app is so wonderful! You take the picture and it does virtually everything else (suggest ID, records the location, includes the observation in relevant projects), except record whether it is captive/cultivated. Unpopular opinion time, but one of the things I like the least about iNaturalist is the captive/cultivated selection. Especially now that I know that those observations are largely disregarded. I know reporting the status of wild versus captive/cultivated has value to many users, and I am not trying to minimize anyone’s voice, but I find the whole topic divisive and not inclusive, which in my estimation misses the entire point of iNaturalist. It should bring together a community of people who have an interest in learning about and sharing their interest in the natural world.

In summary, the power of iNaturalist is not in only its direct contributions to science, but who it brings into science.

[kiwifergus]

Well put and well demonstrated in evidence!

I have a huge bias toward cultivated plants, as it is how I encountered and grew my interest in iNaturalist, and if the site was like it is now back then, I likely would have given up on it.

From my perspective, this is a serious issue, and a considerable backward step that iNat seemed to make when they introduced the new Identify process. Prior to that it seemed to allow cultivated plants to be marked as “Needs ID” even though they were marked captive/cultivated.

For me, the simplest fix would be to make the Identify modal default to include captive/cultivated, but to be sticky so that those only interested in the wild stuff can change the filter and have them excluded. By far the majority of new users are not aware they have to “opt in” to include identifying captive/cultivated observations.

[schoenitz]

@tonycullen

a perspective that I haven’t heard fully voiced after reading through this thread

Consider voting: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/make-captive-cultivated-not-automatically-no-id-needed/112

[fffffffff]

Captive plants are systematically reviewed so considering casual=no id is wrong.

[jbecky]

@tonycullen

However, I am frustrated to find out that marking captive/cultivated almost ensures you won’t get an ID.

Me too. That’s why I go through all observations near me, Casual or not. And when I do Unknowns that I can tell are captive/cultivated, I give them the best ID I can, especially when I can confirm an existing ID. I do this because my non-naturalist friends need all the encouragement they can get, even if it is just observing the flowers planted in the local park.

[jurga_li]

Sorry for chiming again with the same note, but have just found one voiced proof of an identifier tired of dealing with cultivated plants (apparently unmarked as such). The thread is about the lengthening time of the responses/IDs and developing to why there are too little plant identifiers https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/question-about-response-time-for-ids/10195 read the response by kmagnacca