I think probably the best first improvement would be to require someone to add an explanation when editing taxon photos, similar to adding/editing names. That would appear in the taxon history. I think forcing someone to publicly explain their actions would deter at least some of the people who are choosing their own photos, etc.
If someone writes a cogent explanation, then others would at least understand what their rationale was and it would be easier to start a convo in a flag. If someone doesnāt write anything cogent, and I think it would be easier to intervene and potentially temporarily suspend them or something if it continues after a warning.
ohhhhh. has this been true for the last 5 years? I didnāt see an obvious way to do this thenā¦ Sorry, thanks. Thanks for being clear, and getting through to my dense brain. Not sure why the curator at the time didnāt say this.
I would really hate this one, because there are times when I select photos that look okay in the (tiny) photo selection window, but terrible when looked at on the taxon page, so I go back and choose new/better photos. Incidentally, Iād love a way to see larger photos in the photo selection window (short of opening every potential photo as a new tab to check it) to avoid this problem. Itās not that Iām fighting with anyone else on the best photo, just that Iām trying to find the best ones.
The idea of having to provide a reason for a change of taxon photos sounds (dare I admit it?) annoying in the cases Iām typically dealing with, which are mostly that the only photo is the first one to reach RG. There are so many taxa where no one has spent any time choosing taxon photos (at least in the Australian native plant species Iām mostly interested in), and adding the requirement to give a reason when itās just āummā¦ making things better?ā is just another small hurdle to jump for taxa no one is questioning. I guess I can understand the need when I hear others talk about taxon photo fights, but itās not really something Iāve come across.
I would prefer to leave a brief comment (text expander makes it very easy!) when I change taxon pictures.
For my Senna example here, I am āforcedā to flag so I can explain. If it is changed again so the field mark disappears - then the history stands as a whodunit track record.
I personally think dealing with a little annoyance to cure a bigger problem would be worth it. Regardless if we just added the option to add details and required it for the second (or more) times you change the taxon that would remove most of the annoyance.
Actually doubling back I think it would be more helpful for people if you always added details so people considering switching it can make more educated decisions
This is how the Establishment category is for taxa. Thereās a text box for comments, not required, but nice to have the option to justify oneās choice of listing something as introduced or established.
The problem is that there isnāt generally much to say. āThere were almost no photos, I tried to pick ones that showed a range of characteristics.ā I could add that Iām rarely wedded to my choices, so if someone else wants to change them, fine (within reason, of course).
If this is whatās decided, Iāll work with that, of course - I just wanted to express a different perspective: that of someone whoās normally only editing photos because there are few or none.
I do the same thing with lizards in the Amazon. If there is no default photo I add it. As observations accumulate I edit these from what is available to the 12 best. By the time it gets to CV eligible there are usually a good enough selection that this process is less needed. Youāre absolutely correct that taxon photos are edited more early in the process of accumulating observations. If there are numerous taxa that need editing, I may do these all at once which means limiting the number of changes would handicap the process for those poorly documented species.
I think Iāve only seen suggestions of limiting the number of times one can edit the same taxon, not the total number of taxa you can make changes to. But yes, Iāll sometimes do a whole batch at once and agree that limiting the number of taxa one can edit in a short time would be a nuisance. (Nice to know itās not just me, by the way! :-) )
What are you noticing that is wrong with that? I think that is a perfectly good explanation and would provide context for people considering changing it to a photo they link ālooksā better.
Totally agree with this. Iām not sure how taxon photos work (how the first ones are added that is, I always assumed it was auto once a certain amount of observations were added), but I do a lot of little known and observed Latrodectus spiders and often the photos are of egg sacks or web formations where you cannot see the spider so limiting it down to only one change every 48 hours would be troublesome.
I think the best solution would simply be adding the option to add details and requiring once the taxon photo has been changed multiple times within a few hour period.
Way back, iNat used FlickR (better than no picture). But now, most taxon pictures you see have been added by an iNatter. The default recently changed to RG (I was horrified when I realised the previous default was NOT RG)
That may be, but some of my photos have been used to illustrate taxa for which mine is the only observation and which have never reached RG because no one has ever confirmed the id. I hasten to add that I did not choose them myself. I never choose my own photos even when I think theyāre the best. I confine my fiddling with taxon photos to replacing stock Femorale shell photos with better iNat photos. Femorale tends to tart up their photos to make the shells look redder and shinier than they actually are and oftentimes do not show the most relevant features.
Yes, when one looks at the available photos in the add taxon photos portal, it only shows those at Research Grade. However, at the top one can simply type in the observation number from its url and it will allow any photos from that individual observation to be added. Iāve done this on occasion when I want to use a specific observationās photo OR when one of the first observations for a species hasnāt reached RG yet, but my confidence in the ID is high.
It shouldnāt be per photo, but maybe per photo edit āsession?ā Sometimes i move many images around when trying to pick the best for a taxa of Chironomidae.
Would it be possible to have a preview mode to see what the taxon page would look like before clicking āSave Photosā?
As someone mentioned I often change photos around just after making a change when I realize, the quality is much worse than I could tell in the small thumbnail(and variety of other reasons) that would be solved by seeing what your changes would look like and not requiring multiple explanations
In some cases, I changed the taxon cover photo with a photo from a new observation (an observation I have just reviewed and identified) that is not RG (and that might remain needs ID for yearsā¦), because I prefered this new photo and because I was as confident as one can be in this identification.
