For some of my observations, they’re in the same nature preserve, but there are three distinct habitats in the one park. If I find an insect at two out of three during a certain part of the year, I’ll log each instance of those I encounter in a day. It’s interesting to me to see how insects move around during the season.
After reading through here, it’s clear to me I need to describe the conditions better/at all in case someone is studying my organism.
This is an interesting question with many angles. As a casual but enthusiastic user of iNaturalist, my attitude towards certain observations (that may appear useless to me) is, mark as reviewed and move on. The exception for me would be obvious examples of captive/cultivated organisms, which I would mark as such. I agree with others who have already commented that utility is in the eye of the beholder.
The issue of multiple observations of animal tracks that was raised here caused me to consult the guidelines about observations. Below are relevant excerpts:
An observation records an encounter with an individual organism at a particular time and location.
You should make separate observations for each separate organism you encounter. But if you take multiple pictures of the same organism, please combine them into a single observation. If you revisit that organism later, such as returning to a plant on a later date when it’s in bloom, you should make a separate observation because it was observed on a different date.
Clearly, multiple observations of the same individual across time are valid. But what is the minimum time interval to qualify as a separate observation? Something between one second and 24 hours? This answer may differ for animals vs plants. For example, if I observe a bird during nesting season I may capture multiples different behaviors throughout one day, such as foraging, feeding, brooding, defending the nest. I would consider all observations of this bird made during a particular session to be one observation. But if a couple of hours later, I made additional observations of the same bird, I would consider this to be a separate observation. As far as the tracks go, technically each track represents a “particular time and location.” But I would guess the intention of the guideline is not that each track from animal be submitted separately.
At the same time, it doesn’t bother me that others may believe differently. The framework of iNaturalist appears intended to keep the bar low for participation, therefore making it easier for more people to engage in whatever way they enjoy. That may mean that as an identifier, I find certain observations not worth my time. Nothing wrong with that, and no need to spend time on them. If a particular practice on iNat becomes a widespread problem, I assume it can be addressed via rules and/or guidelines tweaking. Or if a particular user is frequently mis-using the platform, I would hope that a DM from staff or curators would resolve the issue.
And as someone who reviews a lot of Araceae, I see that all the time – it is an unusually popular family with horticulturists. I’ve been known to send aroids to casual within minutes of upload. Every page has several, even when I set it to random and look at older observations.
I feel like a lot of people are missing the point that of course there’s nothing wrong with adding tons of observations to inat, it doesn’t violate any rules and users are free to add as much observations as they want and for the most part with as little quality as they want. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be annoying and tiring for identifiers. Personally I try my best to keep identifiers in mind when observing.
Everyone is free to observe however they see fit, but I have to ask; what do you gain from adding 50 observations of every individual animal track instead of putting your best photos from each trail of tracks into 5 or just 1 observation/s?
I try to add a lot of observations to iNat of common plants in my region, partly because I simply enjoy looking closely at what’s out there, but also (and perhaps more importantly) I would like to leave a body of data for researchers in the future that demonstrates a relatively fine-scale distribution of species at the current time, before human habitat alterations or climate change go any farther. I’ve found such data (in the form of town floras from a century or so ago) to be very useful in assessing the past vs. current distribution of plants when I’ve written conservation plans or proposed species for listing under my state’s endangered species act.
For example, if I look at the iNat distribution of a very common tree around here, Eastern White Pine, in Massachusetts, it looks as though it’s mainly concentrated in eastern Massachusetts and in the Connecticut River valley in the western part of the state. In reality, what the iNat map is showing is the distribution of observers in the state. I can look at that map, figure out where Eastern White Pine has not been observed, and go fill in the blanks (while observing lots of other species at the same time, of course). I get to go explore new places and make small contributions to the knowledge of the distribution of many common species.
And that means I might be perceived as making excessive observations. I can live with that perception.
Good to know that is the recommendation. :)
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.