I’ve only just recently logged back in after 2 years and realised I was using iNat like a photographer not, well… an iNatter. For some reason I’ve been collecting observations like they’re a living Pokédex and I have no idea why. Did anyone else do this at first? How did/do you break out of the perfectionist, curator mindset?
7 Likes
I’d say, once I started getting to know the community, especially after I joined the forum and met some awesome people! I realized that iNat wasn’t only about doggedly submitting observations, it was about getting to know other naturalists, laughing over terrible photos and funny animals and enjoying rare finds and good shots.
So now, when I submit observations, I often add a description, which tells other members of the community about the ob, and I chat with other iNatters about it. I @mention experts to get better IDs, and connect with the community overall while contributing to science.
It’s also about learning. Just educating the community and ourselves about the beautiful world we live in. It can really make a difference.
I think iNat is about all of these, and will continue to do my best in these senses!
19 Likes
I don’t think that is wrong.
There are few ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ ways to use iNat. Abundant observations with whatever tool is at hand and fewer observations that focus on the photography aspect are both equally valid as long as you’re getting enjoyment out of it.
38 Likes
That’s not a wrong way to use iNat, it’s just another, perhaps more limited, way.
In fact, that’s mostly how I use it. I don’t need to document in INat every time I see a squirrel. I could, many do; but it brings no purpose to me. Each observation I document in iNat is an encounter I had. I do it similarly like I would write it down in a notebook, taking them time to check it and learn about. Actually I have a notebook where I collect and write information about the observed genus or species. A tiny bit of research which allows me to retain some of it in very different types of observations (birds, mushrooms, mammals, fish, echinoderms, etc.).
For my use, I believe quality should always trump quantity. And a huge list of observations, in my opinion, dilute the attention to each.
16 Likes
Update - my 7 Mavericks are down to the last 2. Thank you !!
I have 7 Mavericks and I stand by them till convinced otherwise.
https://www.inaturalist.org/identifications?user_id=dianastuder&category=maverick
Respect! You have only 2 - but for those identifiers, might you reconsider your IDs there ? (One down - thanks)
https://www.inaturalist.org/identifications?user_id=nickhayesuk&category=maverick
Notifications are a pain, if you have a lot after 2 years ? But otherwise, there may be questions patiently waiting. Some observe, some ID, some do clean up on aisle 3, and whatever.
If the perfectionist curator mindset is an identifier, the answer will be different. Aisle 3 reaches from Cape Town to Australia, 3 times around the world, on foot ‘via the land route’ (would work better if I had chosen a land-based destination :~) 27 years ? Maybe, if I earn an extra bit of the next life.
1 Like
I love this, I’d love to shift my mindset of using iNat to something like this too. I realise now it’s meant to be about collaborating and citizen science, I must have forgotten that along the way.
3 Likes
I don’t think that is wrong and also I bet the majority of people’s iNat use has changed over time so I think you are not alone that your initial approach to iNaturalist may not be the one you ultimately embrace. And I think the dynamic nature of iNaturalist balances all these approaches just wonderfully, so there is no need to be concerned at all that any of them is wrong.
Happy iNatting!
8 Likes
Love the comparison. I may use that when teaching less-than-excited-about-nature people.
5 Likes
I agree that quality is important, but I absolutely think quantity is critical.
To me, the main intention of iNat is for scientific data, and the more the better, as long as each observation meets the basic criteria. It’s not about giving ‘attention’ to each.
For example: If someone is doing a study of pollinators, a huge dataset of dandelions showing whether the flowering times have been changing over the years would be amazing information. Quantity is critical and more useful than a smaller number of ‘better quality’ observations.
11 Likes
casseljs taught me this: We get these tiny craft jars from the dollar store to put specimen in when we are in the field. We call them Pokéballs and I tell students we can “collect them all.” My students are definitely creating a living Pokédex! Last year, some 5th graders started make Poke cards with their iNat observations.
14 Likes
If you’re posting more-or-less identifiable photos of wild organisms with accurate date and location information, you’re doing iNaturalist right!
Quantity vs. quality? Your choice. Which organsms? Your choice. Diverse species vs. specialization? Your choice. Post photos vs. identify? Your choice. That’s what makes iNaturalist so much fun.
41 Likes
I don’t think there is a way to use iNat “wrong”, unless you’re deliberately and maliciously entering incorrect IDs (especially on other people’s observations). If you’re honestly trying to enter good data, and providing good input to other data, I think you’re doing everything right.
</TLDR notice>
I’m not a social animal, so the interactions with other iNat’ers is a secondary concern. Even so, I’ve identified several good identifiers for various underwater classes and orders, and I’ll @mention them if I’m stuck on an ID. But I don’t generally get involved in conversations unless they’re about the subject at hand. The detailed discussions about this or that ID, the key identifying features, etc., all help me to do better with my next picture … but I’m not a chatty person so I’m unlikely to get involved in casual banter.
My use of iNat has changed even in the short year or so I’ve been involved. I started by only submitting one observation for a given species. I’d already spent time saving my best pictures of each and happily uploaded them … and was helped to fix dozens of incorrect IDs in the process. But I also wanted to know everywhere I’d seen a given species, so I’m going back through the pictures and uploading new observations (as long as I have an identifiable picture) for each location. Where things are seen is as important as what was seen, at least that’s the way I see it, and iNat helps me build my own map of species distribution for everything I’ve seen in my 20-odd years of diving.
In the end, using iNat is a personal project that I hope adds something to the overall understanding and debate about our natural world.
13 Likes
That’s fantastic, I love the idea of creating poke cards of observations; I may have to make some of my own! 
3 Likes
While that’s a very useful aspect of iNat, as has been stated by iNat from early on the main intention of iNat is encouraging people to connect with nature, not scientific data. The scientific data is essentially a bonus that emerges from the nature connection aspect.
10 Likes
I definitely am and always will be a perfectionist, not sure exactly what you mean by a “curator” mindset… but I have a feeling I may have that as well. I’m pretty obsessive about prioritising the quality of my observations over their quantity, but I don’t do this either to collect observations, or to show off any particular skill. I do it because I believe good quality observations are easier to ID, provide useful reference material for other observers/identifiers and can also contribute to science. I’m pretty sure that doesn’t stop me from:
I’d say quite the opposite 
.
5 Likes
As others have said, I think there really isn’t a single “correct” way to use iNat.
I find myself enjoying iNat more in conversations than I do adding observations. I grew up around people who weren’t particularly interested in nature, so iNat has become my way of talking with like‑minded folks about organisms the average person wouldn’t think twice about. 
7 Likes
A great conversation starter topic! For me, iNaturalist is my natural history diary and blog. Sometimes I am after and ID, but usually not when I am working near home. I am usually looking for new insights into nature–ecological relationships, behavior, phenology, etc.
The great thing about this platform is how it can evolve along different lines for each user.
7 Likes
Using Inat wrong?! Unless you are being a troll, ignorant, or overtly complacent—how?
How can you use Inat wrong? The goal of Inat is to connect people to citizen science and all the species around us. Seems like you are using Inat the way it’s intended to be!
Correct, except for the “Pokedex” being larger, contributing to a greater good, providing valuable insights into species and/or locations, helping you grow your skills as a identifier, and so much more!
If you want to try using Inat in a different way, you can help by identifying or annotating observations that you are unfamiliar with. It’s a great way to learn new species and give back.
7 Likes
Quantity has its own sort of quality, especially if a mass of observations of an identifiable organism have reliable GPS, that’s how scientists can start leveraging iNaturalist for more complex ecosystem-level studies rather than just simple distribution and abundance of species (which of course are important in their own right).
I notice a lot of users use iNat as a “living Pokedex”, only really observing when they see a new species to them, and never again. While this approach isn’t ‘wrong’, it does limit the value that a particular user might be able to add to the database, since they get narrowed down to adding one datapoint per species, as opposed to many datapoints for a given species.
Again, it’s not wrong, but I think the OP shows that there might be an evolution of use from life list collecting to adding more information about a species in different times and places.
7 Likes
So me uploading hundreds of sparrows and honeysuckles actually helps someone? 
10 Likes