Easy way to mark multiple-species observations

[bouteloua]

Yes, or different levels of molting, life stage, sex, color, etc…

[cmcheatle]

That should be solved if/when photo level annotations replace or are added to observation level annotations.

[bouteloua]

Molting, wing color, and thousands of other observation fields and data types aren’t annotations, and many observations are added to projects based on this type of information, but not annotated.

It’ll be interesting to see how a future photo annotation feature is implemented, whenever that is, and it would be helpful to know if that feature is intended to change the current definition of what an observation is, or if it would only be used for indicating in a photo which individual is the female, for example, or which part of the photo is depicting the fruit.

Anyway, it’s difficult to discuss topics ancillary to a feature that doesn’t exist…

I still would prefer a more inclusive option:

@bouteloua

How about a new Data Quality Assessment item or other ability that is only accessible to curators, which could be a catch-all for marking an observation as casual or hidden?

This way the user who notices the duplicate content should 1) first comment on the observation to ask observer to fix it, 2) upon lack of action, flag the observation for curation, then 3) a curator can confirm that it is a true duplicate, mark it as duplicate, which hides and/or casual-grades it, and resolve the flag.

I recommend curator-only access since as you mention, many users confuse “multiple observer dupes” as “bad”, whereas it’s totally okay if multiple people observe the same thing. And, it may not be a true duplicate after all.

The catch-all casual-grade and/or hide feature could also apply to cases where

• the observer uploaded several photos of completely different organisms and is also unresponsive to requests to separate them, and
• “inappropriate” observations where the user has been warned/suspended, but the flag would otherwise remain unresolved in perpetuity. Our only option for hiding grossly inappropriate content at this time is to mark them as “spam”, which isn’t ideal.

[dianastuder]

all photos show the single chosen species

The followup - since the original has no ID - force new obs for each species? Good practice in the beginning when everything about iNat is confusing. And encouraging for new people if - instead of the multiples being ignored, they get the multiple engagement and IDs.

If iNat blocks the option to ID multiples
4 – Comments and ID box greyed out. Replaced with a kind and helpful toast, with a link to a tutorial showing how to - split into species, make new obs, delete the problem child.

Very much hope for an elegant solution before the bio-blitz next April, as this year’s has left some dormant confusion. @tonyrebelo

[rupertclayton]

@jdmore

Same species in each photo

When there is a single (or no) photo, this should be greyed out and all votes cleared.

@jdmore

When number of photos on an observation decreases, the DQA is automatically cleared and reset by the system. If it turns out to have been only a partial fix, people can downvote the DQA again until the fix is complete.

Yes, yes and yes. A DQA field labelled something like “Same species in each photo” or “Same species in all photos” limits the confusion over how “Same individual(s)” might be interpreted. (It’s a pity that “species” is ambiguous as to singular or plural, but I think other options such as “taxon” are more confusing.)

Totally agree that this DQA field should only be available for observations with multiple photos. And any edit that removes an image should reset this DQA field. As @jdmore says, the small proportion of observations that are still problematic can just be DQA’ed again.

[jeanphilippeb]

@cmcheatle

First iNat adopts @jeanphilippeb’s suggestion to add a DQA field for “Images are of the same individual(s)”. That allows us to identify problematic observations.

This has the potential to impact hundreds of thousands if not millions of observations from people who add multiple photos of the same species into a single record from their outings.

While I understand the well debated rule is ‘one observation = one individual’, do we really want this hard enforced?

I just copied/pasted “Images are of the same individual(s)” from someone else input.
But I meant “Images are of the same species”.

Observations showing different individuals of the same species should be allowed, provided that the location is approximately the same, otherwise separate observations would have more added value. Multi-individual observations may show variations, and reduce the flow of observations.

@jdmore

Same species in each photo

I can’t advise about the precise syntax/wording (not native English speaker).

In the first place, we need to fix and agree on the specification (that the DQA label will summarize):
Each photo [or sound record] in the observation must show [something of] an individual of [likely] the same species.

Remark 1:
This species may not be uniquely defined. An observation with 2 pictures, each showing a butterfly on a flower, will not be flagged if either the butterflies or the flowers are of the same species.

The question whether to ID the butterfly or the flower is different. But if identifiers start to ID the butterfly in the 1st picture, of a different species from the butterfly in the 2nd picture, then the flag should be set. If we ID the flowers (that happen to be of the same species), then the flag is not set.

Remark 2:
An observation showing different Fabaceae species in different pictures can be IDed as “Fabaceae”, but we should encourage a split. In this case the flag is set. Therefore, the DQA field label must mean species, not taxon.

[jeanphilippeb]

Multiple-species observation unlikely to be solved without a new DQA field:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/5231879

[jdmore]

@jeanphilippeb

I can’t advise about the precise syntax/wording (not native English speaker).

Yes, this would need careful translation for other languages supported by the site.

[Star3]

@dianastuder

• A box to tick multiple species
• which triggers a grey flag like ‘Casual’ but stating Multiple species

Yes and yes!

@dianastuder

which blocks the option to add an ID … until the multiples have been split.

I’m not completely onboard with this last point.

A lot of times, I come to dissent when there have already been multiple IDs on just the first pic.

Sometimes, it’s even gotten all the way to RG without people noticing that all the photos have no organisms in common, and rather than move it out, my ID just becomes a maverick.

Blocking further new IDs from being made would lock other Identifiers out from moving the observation to the higher level taxon, and rely solely on the previous identifiers to withdraw their IDs, which might not happen*.

*That’s not an edge case: think duress users like students who agree with each other’s IDs and then then leave the platform and never return.

[zabdiel]

If it was combined with the idea below or if the checkbox made it casual grade then I don’t think stopping new ids world be a problem.

@dianastuder

The followup - since the original has no ID - force new obs for each species?

[Star3]

But being casual grade doesn’t stop it from appearing in the list of observations for that taxon or remove it from the taxon’s photo gallery, so it is still a problem.

[zabdiel]

Oh, I didn’t realise that. Maybe some casual observations shouldn’t do that. Photos of a captive/cultivated organism might be ok, but having photos which are likely to be wrongly identified show seems like a bad plan.

[dianastuder]

But - those multiple IDs all the way to research grade are not attached to the first picture.
They are attached to the problem child, who needs to be split. Then IDed.

[Star3]

But they are, because all those pics are on the same observation until/unless the observer splits them.

I don’t really see automatic splitting happening (both for a lot of the reasons others have discussed above and because it’s a more complicated fix than adding a DQA field).

[dianastuder]

That is why it is better if iNat prevents adding an ID till the obs is split. Would be better if …

[jeanphilippeb]

@dianastuder

• A box to tick multiple species
• which triggers a grey flag like ‘Casual’ but stating Multiple species
• which blocks the option to add an ID … until the multiples have been split.

@Star3

Blocking further new IDs from being made would lock other Identifiers out from moving the observation to the higher level taxon, and rely solely on the previous identifiers to withdraw their IDs, which might not happen*.

In order to make the feature consistent, as long as the “Multiple species” flag is set, all previous IDs are ignored by the system. In other words, if the flag means that we cannot identify the observation, then a flagged observation cannot be anything else than “Unknown”, or “To split” or “Multiple species”.

[Star3]

Except that sometimes a high level taxon can still fit.

E.g. let’s say there’s an observation where the 1st and 2nd pic is a Monarch butterfly and the 3rd pic is a squirrel.
Let’s futher suppose it gets to RG as a Monarch butterfly based on the first 2 pics, before someone comes along and submits a dissenting ID of Kingdom Animalia and checks the DQA for multiple pics of different species.
Now if we ignore all previous IDs AND all subsequent
IDs until it is split, it goes to “Unknown” and remains there, perhaps indefinitely.

Personally, if it remains unsplit by the observer (like so many do) I’d rather see that example observation under Animals than under Unknown.

[jwidness]

Can someone help move this multispecies observation ID please?
Edited to remove link – no more IDs needed!

[bouteloua]

It doesn’t need any more IDs now. @lotteryd might know a few other users you can @ tag in cases like this rather than post on the forum. This user was last active pretty recently, so more IDs will make it more difficult to “restore” if they do remove the second photo.

edit: thanks :)