If you look at a species’ “about” page, scroll through the photos, and click “view more,” it shows you photos of the most favorited observations. Hypothetically, that makes sense: higher quality photos should get more favorites, but in reality, it isn’t high quality photos that get more favorites; it’s the extremely rare outliers of the species. The problem with that is that people who want “more” photos are probably looking for a realistic look at what the species should generally look like, but they have to scroll far down to get that because of the dozens or maybe hundreds of one-in-a-thousand mutant photos.
Maybe I’ve got it wrong and it was always intended to highlight the rare instances since the first few photos are the “normal” specimens, but even if it wasn’t the intention, I don’t think it’s a huge deal. I don’t have a remedy to suggest (other than adding a “rate image quality” like eBird does, but I think that would discourage people from uploading “”“bad”“” photos and end up making them not upload a photo at all), but I still wanted to point it out.
I don’t know how I completely missed the “order by” filter Still, the only other option is “date added,” which would be exactly the same as just looking at “research grade” observations “with photos,” but I guess it does make my point even more moot.
Well, that would require better options to organize observations one wants to keep track of. I basically only use favourites for IDing purposes (obs. I want to come back to after research, obs. with great discussions about IDing features, obs. that show certain important characteristics of a species …) and I know of several other users using it similarly. I actually unfaved all observations I did fave for aesthetical purposes only because it became to chaotic to still be useful in the way I need it.
If somebody has true interest to know the Species Id only, he/she should patiently go through the suggested photos unless and until he/she finds a pic as per his/her choice.
I can’t understand what the aesthetical unsuitable photos are? Do they look unreal or abnormal?
Why should only typical/Robotic portrait will be faved in iNAT? If somebody wants to become a Zoologist, Botanist etc,so as to be a specialist identifier, they should go through thorough academic studies along with using other Platforms. One will never be able to become a Naturalist unless and until he/she can feel and love the aesthetics of nature.
My personal thoughts although.
Still, the only other option is “date added,” which would be exactly the same as just looking at “research grade” observations “with photos,” but I guess it does make my point even more moot.