i’ve been there. tried to tell someone that feral domestic horses are not the same thing as wild horses (Equus ferus) and got cussed at… then they rejected the community taxon on that observation so it will forever be an inaccurate wild horse observation. :/
I used to think that is enough to report a species in an area just once, but I changed my mind. Of course I don’t take fifty photos of the same plant on one hike, but I repeat observations in the same place if I have a chance. I know that some people are interested in development of plants and subsequent stages like flower buds, flowers or seeds.
4 Likes
It’s also worth people remembering that not all photos are originally taken with iNat in mind. Only a minority of my own obs were taken specifically for iNat. I’ve posted photos of plants taken from a vehicle for various reasons. Maybe I was taking a picture of a giraffe while on safari, or of a volcanic landscape, and only later noticed that there is an interesting plant in the corner of my photo. Of course, I would only post it if it was a clear enough shot to be likely IDable to at least genus level.
4 Likes
I also quite often use the month filter when searching. For instance, maybe I am interested in what things can be found in a particular forest in April, or I’m trying to work out what might be the best month to visit a certain country so as to see the most reptiles, say. So I definitely appreciate when people continue to log observations of the same species at the same place at different times.
8 Likes
iNat has hundreds of thousands of completely useless observations. Multiple opportunistic observations by one person of one species at one location generally provide value only insofar as they add data on interspecific variation. If your photos don’t include enough detail of a given species to capture variation that isn’t already well-studied, I don’t see what value they provide. Documenting previously-unknown limits in variability is valuable, but non-systematically documenting within previously-known limits of variation is not. Quantitative study of variation requires at least reasonably systematic record-keeping and decent survey methodology; opportunistic observers tend to focus on the most usual examples, biasing their samples in favor of rarer phenotypes.
Systematic record-keeping is a much more efficient use of time than intensive opportunistic observation, with use in studies of phenology, habitat associations, and the influence of weather on activity. If you upload hundreds of photos of a species without any notes, however, you’re the only person on iNat who knows whether your records are systematic or what methodology you used. Opportunistically and inconsistently photographing a species numerous times does not produce high-quality data that could be used by researchers.
I have on a few occasions made quantitative use of iNat observations to estimate abundance and distribution thereof, but I use number of observers, rather than number of observations, as my metric. An individual monitoring effort can produce valuable data, but only if it’s systematic. If I don’t know your methodology or your methodology is unsound, I can’t rely on your data.
3 Likes
I’m almost certainly the “20 uploads of the same species in one night by the same observer” you’re referencing. 
I am interested in overall species richness, but am at least as interested or more interested in trends within and across years. I observe many of the same species over and over. Celery Leaftier moth and Eastern Black-legged Tick are two that I’m guilty of observing consistently and frequently in large batches.
But by attempting to observe all moths at my moth sheet whenever I moth, I saw a 40% decrease (corrected for effort) in observations of Celery Leaftier from 2022 to 2023.
Furthermore, by excessively observing Eastern Black-legged Ticks, I observed what is still the only iNat record of Gulf Coast Tick in WV. I doubt I would have encountered it if not for my close attention to Eastern Black-legged Ticks.
6 Likes
One of the best comments in this thread! I can’t understand how someone can be upset about having too many observations of a taxon, as long as the observations are mostly reasonably verifiable. Identifiers are acting as if the number of observations should be a finite number that they can complete within a predetermined time frame, after which they’ll dust off their hands and congratulate themselves for a job well done.
This should be a conversation about observation quality, not quantity.
3 Likes
This could be a fascinating lifetime project if someone committed to finding and identifying every species of moss, fungus, soil invertebrate, puddle plankton etc. in a yard or patch of forest or whatever.
4 Likes
I, too, was annoyed at huge swaths of repetitive observations. But that’s because I’m mostly an identifier and don’t prefer having to navigate through those, especially a thousand trees photographed from a moving vehicle. However, the comments on this thread have made me think more about this. Observations are not primarily intended to maximize the entertainment value of my identification sessions, even though part of me would naturally assume so!
I haven’t muted a user yet, but I’ve been tempted when I encounter page after page of repetitive observations. However, now at least with all the commentary here about the potential scientific value of some “repetitive” observations, I’ll accept them.
And here, I was worried that I was being too repetitive because I posted multiple observations of the same species in the same place. I guess I won’t worry about over-observing sword ferns, Douglas firs, and western red cedars.
7 Likes
Every iota of information is useful.
2 Likes
I’m recording an ecosystem, not individual plants and animals. People in the future might appreciate having a detailed look at what was in the permanently protected land where I live. I have about 10-11k observations in a 1000 acre area. I know I must get repeats, but looking at the map, I don’t see too many overlays. If I zoom in a lot.
Another reason to make multiple observations is to let people see that we have a problem. The Land Trust needs to know that Euonymus alatus is spreading 1/2 mile into their property.
Knowing that there was one of something in a town doesn’t compare to seeing how prevalent species were, when they flowered, when they went to seed, and when they went dormant. I also put up landscape photos in observations, to allow people to see what the landscape looked like at the time of the observation, and to see what species are associated with other species.
8 Likes
But “intensive opportunistic observation” is fun! That’s why I intend to continue doing it. iNaturalist isn’t just about generating data for scientisits, though that’s one rewarding part of it. And I think one premise of iNaturalist is that lots of data collected by lots of people using different plans or non-plans, will eventually sum to useful data. The list of papers that use iNaturalist data suggests this is true.
13 Likes
As someone who has used iNat observations in academic research, to find locations where I can expect to find some plant for research collection, I can see the value of relatively dense observing. I have found little tight clusters of observations from a single user on occasion, and that let’s me know there is probably a decent number/population of whatever plant I’m looking for at that location.
Add to the consideration here, how often is too often to observe the same species in the same place. I often update my observations with later photos, with dates in the Notes field, but most people just snap a quick picture, post it without notes, and move on, so I would actually like for some users to post separate observations of the same species in the same spot at different points in time, for example, on different years, to indicate the continued presence of that species at that location.
I think the main issue arises is when you have many, low-quality observations in the same vicinity. That just seems like a drag on iNat’s server space/cost. I wonder sometimes how staggering the server cost of iNat will be in just a few years, given current growth rate of observations.
7 Likes
I 100% agree with this sentiment. :)
2 Likes
Just a heads-up, you should make a new observation of an organism if you’re observing it at a different time and place: https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/help#observations8
If you record an observation of a tree, then go back a day later to take another photo, please add a new observation using the new photo, because it represents the tree at a different point in time.
6 Likes
I find myself in agreement with your sentiment and strongly dislike it when people give rude or dismissive responses to politely posed requests. That said, it might be worthwhile to edit the post and remove the “solid brick in an area of…,” and the rough number of observations, as that information is enough to easily find the user.
5 Likes
I checked the observations because, even though you deleted the apparent personal mention, you left enough clues to have him easily identified. The guy not only uploads hoof tracks. He also uploads feces and direct observations of the animals. If I were a moose scientist, however they’re called, that would seem like a ton of very, very useful information. Plus, the reason you see that weird brick, it’s because they’re all obscured.
5 Likes
I suspect one reason a person posts a huge number of records of one species is so they can be the top observer of that species. I’m not a fan of that motive but there’s nothing technically wrong with it.
1 Like
Even when people are aware of this guideline, they still sometimes choose to keep photos of the same organism from a different time (and at a different stage of life) in the same observation because of the lack of formal support for linking/correlating observations.
2 Likes
Personally what one person finds useful is going to be useless to another and vice versa. I am not a scientist I’m just a silly autistic nerd but I love Trillium and Trillium Grandiflorum I love identifying it and have taken a bit of an interest in looking at rates of Phytoplasma infection in groupings of T. Grandiflorum I both when identifying love seeing people who post lots of different individuals even if in a small area just cause its a plant I love! I love seeing what different populations look like. As far as looking at phytoplasma infection its also useful as not every individual in a population is likely to be infected and the observer might not even realize that a singular flower with a small green stripe is infected with something.
As far as I personally go when observing it depends. If it is something super commonly found I am not going to go posting every individual I see, if I’m in a area I haven’t been in previously I will probably document/post the first one I see. Same with if I go a while without seeing that species on my walks/hikes then the next time I do I will document/post it. If it is invasive I will post pretty much every individual or every few feet I will document an individual. If it is something I am particularly interested I might document it far more often even if it is common.
Really for me it comes down to documenting what I find fun and having fun with being out in nature and using Inat to better connect to my surroundings and the organisms inhabiting the world around me!!!
9 Likes