No it is not. It’s just simply not what iNat is intended for.
In the same way, hammers aren‘t biased against screws and screwdrivers aren‘t biased against nails.
Personally, I‘d love if fossils were allowed and more frequent, but that’s also not what iNat is for…
The issue here is that iNat would be flooded with pictures of pets, houseplants et al which really have no benefit for either in-situ nor for ex-situ conservation. If iNat‘s top observations were: Cat, Dog, Chicken, Phalaenopsis Orchid, some Ficus hybrids used for bonsai or as decorative throw-away plants in shops and offices, Monsteras, Pothos, etc. then it wouldn’t be all that attractive to a large part of the regular users.
Time to start sister websites for garden growers, pet breeders, and anyone interested in engaging with unidentified potted plants at their local post office… iPetshopist? iHorticulturist? Obviously there’s a demand, falling outside the main scope (or ‘Vision’ and ‘Mission’, as per the ‘about’ page) of iNaturalist.
It’s not about a popularity contest, it’s about people choosing iNat because they agree with its mission. It’s never a good idea to join a group with the sole aim of changing it to suit what you want - much better to choose a group with a mission you’re eager to support.
That might be true, but it’s irrelevant as iNat’s mission was decided long before 99% of current members joined anyway. And anyone who thinks an organisation should change its mission because a tiny minority of users disagrees seems to have missed the point anyway.
I am going to tell you something so very basic you must have missed it.
INaturalist was developed as a platform to encourage people to engage and interact with nature.
By “people” iNat means humans of all walks of life, globally. Not excluding the true professionals who’ve dedicated their lives to study nor the true neophytes just learning to distinguish grass from tree.
Diana, no there isn’t, you misunderstood. In my statement you quoted, “this” refers to:
(Emphasis added)
Using “wild” for observations that have appropriate metadata makes substantially less sense and is substantially more jargony than the current “verifiable,” as there is zero connection between “wild” and “having a photo or date.”
iNaturalist is trying to use a single word that simultaneously communicates that the observation is of a wild organism and that it has a date, location, etc.—I think you’ve helped show that it’s difficult to do this, and that verifiable is probably the best option (at least from what I’ve seen and heard).
I suspect you did not read what I wrote, so I encourage you to do so.
You continue to make the claim that iNaturalist is using voting or popularity to decide things, despite the fact that I and others have laid out quite clearly that’s not the case. iNaturalist does not use voting to decide things. Voting is used as a tool to gauge widespread support, helping the staff decide where to dedicate their time.
You assume that donating adds depth, but I see zero reason to assume so. As I laid out, donating to make a decision is still, by definition, voting, except now it’s unfair. It’s still a popularity contest, except now people can buy votes—if a high school popularity contest added that mechanic, do you actually suspect the results would be more fair? Why wouldn’t the wealthy students just vote for then people they like (who are likely to be the popular students anyway)? Additionally, if donation voting were adopted, iNaturalist staff would be beholden to the will of the donators, which is a horrible outcome, especially since the biggest donators may very well be new users with (no offense) very little contribution and an obvious lack of understanding and respect for the decade of work that proceeds them. I’m not trying to downplay your contributions, I definitely appreciate them. I do a whole lot of work with cultivated plant identification on here as well, and frankly the system works great for almost everyone. I recommend sticking to it for a while with an open mind, and within a few weeks or months it will start to make more sense.
I think you would have more success here if instead of talking about popularity contests, you focused on your experience of being confused by the interface. “This interface is confusing to some people, how could it be made more accessible for newcomers?” is going to get more traction and less pushback than saying something philosophical about tyranny.
I still like “eligible”. Part why I like it is because the question is obvious (eligible for what?), so people will automatically know that they don’t know what it means, so they can look it up. The problem with “verifiable” is that people assume they already know what it means, and they assume wrong.
I don’t think “casual” has this same problem because, while it does have a more standard meaning in other contexts, it’s not immediately clear what meaning it would have in this context. So, it’s more intuitive that it must have some specialized meaning.