If a user is treated like an idiot they will become complicit and not learn which furthers a cycle.
It doesn’t have to be immediately apparent as long as resources are provided to those who seek it
3 Likes
Thanks for typing this up, well written.
I also agree with the first suggestion and think it would be nice to have.
1 Like
I think another topic you have created has thoroughly discussed why a donation based system would not be ideal.
This statement is also separate from your first point and more of a overarching belief system that you have.
Your phrasing “i can’t imagine anyone disagreeing” come off as dismissive or confrontational, and may unintentionally shut down constructive dialogue. A more open-ended approach, can make more respectful conversation.
If you truly can’t imagine someone disagreeing, then maybe you should wait to type it out.
5 Likes
It sounds like you didn’t invest in upfront learning about iNat and it impacted the quality of your research. Is the most important lesson here that iNat needs to change how it works?
9 Likes
Wait, what what does “verifiable” actually mean on iNaturalist?
I have been assuming that it means “has enough information that in theory someone could verify it”, which in effect means “has some kind of evidence”, e.g. a photo.
But it looks like maybe it means basically the same thing as “not casual”, in which case…why are there two terms being used which mean the same thing?
(@epiphyte78 I’m sorry, I have no idea why this is appearing as a reply directly to you. It is intended as a reply to the whole thread. Edit: Oh never mind, it’s because you started the thread. Okay, I’m taking a break now, I am too confused.)
3 Likes
I suspect that the term verifiable is used, in essence, to mean “not casual” for two main reasons.
1, verifiable means the observation is verifiable as a wild organism that was encountered at a given date and place, and
2, there isn’t a single-word way to communicate this other than the word “verifiable.” “Not casual” is rather inelegant and borderline tautological.
I guess I understand the need (or at least the desire) for a single word, but that’s not at all what “verifiable” means in any other context I’ve ever heard of. (It means, “able to be verified”! Most people are going to assume that’s what it means here, because why wouldn’t they?)
Maybe this is the first time anyone has ever complained about it, but it is really confusing, to the point of being actively misleading.
(Edit: It’s especially confusing in the filters because there are already filters for “Wild” and “Captive”. What is verifiable doing that wild isn’t?)
2 Likes
it includes both research grade observations and needs id observations that could become research grade
1 Like
Yes, but how is that different from the filter for “wild”?
1 Like
the filter “wild” is actually captive=false and if you search for verifiable and captive observations, you will get zero results. So yes all wild observations are verifiable and vice versa.
But there are other reasons an observation is unverifiable other than being captive, hence why the filter exists.
If you uncheck verifiable, and check wild https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?captive=false you get many observations which may lack an id, a date etc and are left out of the verifiable pool
is that a better explanation?
3 Likes
Okay, that makes sense as a separate thing. Calling that “verifiable” (when many of the excluded observations can be verified) is still really confusing. 
2 Likes
I think it is because those observations are only verifiable if original observer changes something: adds a picture/sound, date, location, etc
The rest can be verified without the aid of the original observer, thus to any other user they are verifiable
To be honest, I never gave it much thought and didn’t think it was confusing/convoluted but now that I am trying to explain it I understand your perspective
1 Like
If you hold your mouse over “Verifiable” it says “Eligible to be Research Grade”, which makes a lot more sense. Maybe instead of “Verifiable” it could be “RG Eligible” or even just “Eligible”? (It’s already a weird filter, because selecting it doesn’t change the URL.)
Anyway, it looks like confusion over this is the source of the main complaint in this thread. They might have been confused anyway, but being confused about what this label meant was definitely part of it.
1 Like
iNat uses its own jargon, and words here mean what they say they do.
Imagine translating Not Wild as Casual into other languages. It does not make ‘out there in the real world sense’ even to people who DO speak English.
Research Grade means 2 people agree - that is an exceedingly low bar for research.
Maybe it would be better if iNatters (observers, identifiers and staff) created new words fit to purpose. We name species after all.
Cape Town is an observose city. iNat invented that word fit to purpose.
We are observose people!
There is an open request to separate the broken obs, which are missing data, from the Not Wild / Captive / Cultivated which are still Needs ID to the observer and willing identifiers.
Yes there is.
Wild
iNat feels like Freemasons with secret handshakes. Casual does not mean - come to work in your pyjamas (not a morning person me)
1 Like
@natev think of tug-of-war with a twist, nobody actually tugs. the winner is decided simply by whichever side of the rope has more people holding it. this is voting. but if the participants do actually tug on the rope, then whichever side tugs the hardest, wins. this is donating.
voting by its nature solely looks at the breadth of support. donating, on the other hand, looks at breadth and depth.
right now the popular answer is that inat’s mission should largely be about wild individuals. in school, did you win any popularity contests? personally, i did not. nobody that i’ve ever truly looked up to or respected has ever won a popularity contest. so the fact that inat’s mission is largely influenced by a popularity contest is a big red flag.
as you pointed out, inat is a very small and specific subset of the general population. we’re nature nerds. so i would like to think that everyone here would truly appreciate the importance of ex-situ conservation. except clearly and sadly this is not the case.
so even though the majority of members here are nature nerds, tyranny of the majority is still a really bad idea.
bolded for emphasis
I understand your concern, but I don’t know where you are getting that from and I don’t believe that is the case, I think most people here would agree with you that ex-situ conservation is very important. or maybe I think so because I believe in the value of ex-situ conservation.
Point being that iNat’s mission emphasizes documenting biodiversity in the wild, which supports broader conservation efforts including those for captive species. The two are not mutually exclusive, and supporting one doesn’t diminish the value of the other. Try not to fall for a false dichotomy.
2 Likes
i don’t remember seeing any ficus auriculata in northern california. this is because of climate? not really, my friend is growing it in the bay area. for me and many other growers where a species can live outdoors is not a minor detail. it has major implications for ex-situ conservation.
1 Like
bolded for emphasis. right there is the inherent problem. that’s the clear and obvious bias against ex-situ conservation. if this bias was eliminated, then iNat’s mission would emphasize documenting biodiversity. period. full stop. nothing follows.
the default would be to show all the observations, regardless if wild or captive. and then people could choose to filter the results however they wanted. but this suggestion is definitely not popular. again, this is the problem with tyranny of the majority.
Respectfully, you do not appear to be enjoying the site. The topics you have started each explore your complaints with iNaturalist and broad changes you think it needs.
And now you are criticizing it at a fundamental level. Tyranny? No. It is just not what you want. You think. Again, you are a very new user.
Again I suggest you spend more time than three weeks familiarizing yourself, and now I am going to make a specific suggestion, which is to read the Forum Guidelines. Please take them in and sit with them and please resist the urge to propose changes to them as well.
In particular, pay attention to the section bolded A few more things, which contains this:
Don’t come here to denigrate iNaturalist. If you have suggestions or critiques, please make them. But if your sole purpose is just to express how much you dislike iNat, we’ll ask you to find another platform.
I truly think if you give iNaturalist a chance and take time to fully explore, utiziling the Forum to ask questions to find features, tools, and aspects, you will find it works better than three weeks of poking around might indicate.
12 Likes
The choice to prioritize wild organisms is not about “popularity”, actually – at least if one goes by the number of plant observations that are captive/cultivated (over 10 million, or around 10%, the vast majority of which are potted plants and pampered ornamentals), one could argue that there is broad popular support for iNat being used for cultivated plants.
iNat is primarily focused on wild organisms because the people running iNat have decided that this is what is most consistent with what they see as the purpose and mission of the site.
Every website has to set priorities somewhere – saying that cultivated plants are not the focus of iNat is a perfectly legitimate decision, as is the similar decision to not support observations of fossils or rocks, even though this is also a form of engagement with the natural world and there are surely some people who would also like to use iNat for that purpose.
7 Likes