I will take a picture of any plant I find interesting–just anything that catches my eye. So, often, the plants are common or even, unfortunately, invasive, but they are new to me. The cool part is that I do learn from these plants. Once, I was taking a picture of a plant that I suddenly realized I sort of recognized. (In fact, I tend to talk out loud, so I think I said, “I know what you are!”) Because I had seen Cutleaf toothwort in the state I live and took pics that probably didn’t interest a lot of people, I was able to figure out I was looking at two-leaved toothwort in a place I was visiting. It was fun and a surprise to me. So, there is a value for you to just take pictures of what interests you. Plus, don’t discount gardens. I was just visiting a friend’s place, wandered past their pond, looked down and discovered they have ragged fringed orchids growing in their backyard. You just never know what you’ll find. :)
PS I doubt the orchid find was of great scientific merit, but I was able to tell my friend about it, and now they are interested and will not accidentally kill off the orchids by planting something there or digging up that section for some reason.
I work on the ABC APE principle - Always Be Curious and Photograph Everything Thing. As a result, I have stumbled across some interesting species and learnt more about this amazing world we live in.
There are hundreds if not thousands of plant genera that need taxonomic/systematic work. Due to lack of time, funding, and researchers, it might be a hundred or more years before they are all sorted out. Assuming iNat data is still around then, basically anything could be of use and there is no way of knowing what will be most useful in the long run. And, of course, observations are useful for many other reasons too. So, anything could be useful.
In addition to all the previous suggestions, I don’t think anyone has mentioned variation within a species or populations. If you see a lot of variation in a taxon (species/subspecies/varieties), it may mean that it is just a variable taxon or it may mean that it is multiple taxa and perhaps one or more are just not currently recognized. Even if it is just one taxon, you could help answer the question of why it is so variable and if there are patterns in that variation.
The bottom line, as many have mentioned, is to go with what you find most interesting. Many different focal areas could be useful and, as you post more observations, you will see which type get more interactions from people currently pursuing their own interests/research and you can ask those people how you can help if you are interested.
Not to mention that where you live may be underrepresented–that is, I don’t know where you live but there might not be a lot of observers in the area. What is common to you may be wildly uncommon to others and very interesting. My own situation is a case in point since I live in a rural area with very few observers. So I just try to observe whatever catches my fancy, whether it may be common as dirt or not.
And it’s very true: the longer you observe an area, the more you will see and you’ll even start to see things tgat are by no means common.
i endorse most of the many comments above - about follow your interest first and the science will take care of itself. Of course, you can define a science question and set out to answer it. I would only disagree with the person who said iNaturalist is for wild things. This is a perpetuated view that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Planted and domestic creatures have many scientific implications (providing they are reported as such). they are hosts to wild life, they may be first instances of a potential invasive, they can help differentiate potential from realised niches, they are part of our natural history. Also i reject the notion that iNat data has little scientific or conservation value. The >200 million observations from every part of the world is increasingly comprehensive, enables accurate species distribution mapping, new records, and provides a baseline for any environmental inventory.
I started by just adding new species into a project a small group had set up and trying not to repeat - then I realised that this wasn’t very helpful to anyone. I now put as much in as I can when I can. Even the ‘boring’ stuff - it’s useful to someone. I just wish that there where more observers within a 20 mile radius - as part of my ID bit I often search to see if it’s been found locally. But as others have said do what you want and have fun.
iNat’s Community Guidelines say:
“iNaturalist is primarily for observing wild, non-human organisms”
Staff have reaffirmed that focus in many other comments. That doesn’t mean that observations of captive/cultivated organisms aren’t allowed or that they don’t have some value. However, they are not intended to be the focus of iNat.
Because of global warming, many scientists are interested in phenology (when things happen) and how that is changing. These scientists value observations of when a species first appears in spring or when it first flowers. It really helps if these observations are annotated (have the boxes checked to indicate if they are flowering or setting fruit and so on).
I hadn’t thought of that as a reason to annotate. I make lots of OBS of flowers, generally only when they are flowering, and I guess I kinda figured that the fact of them being observed on a particular date was enough of a record, even though I often find myself thinking, “that seems kind of early, usually they’re three weeks later.”
I can see that it could be much more useful for researchers to be able to search for flower X blooming at a certain time, rather than being merely present.
I will try to make more annotations going forward (and maybe retroactively, but no promises…)
Everything, as long it is identifiable, has an accaptably accurate position and is wild.
From the researchers’ point of view, I would say that it much depends on their fields of research. For example, some are into the research on “big data” in natural sciences and works with large databases of georeferenced data. Others may be into taxonomy and, maybe, are interested in seeing all the variability of a given group of species.