I found a couple posts on the eBird facebook group about stalking/harassment and the advice there is to contact eBird staff so they can remove or restrict the offender’s account. However it seems like people haven’t had much luck getting any response from eBird when they’re experiencing those issues.
You can label yourself as an Anonymous User (not that helpful in many contexts) or manually hide all your checklists from public output.
but do you have the humility and theory of mind to listen to others’ experience as well? You could do a quick search of this forum. Many people have reported problems with this and msot of them aren’t in the community any more. Just because you don’t have a problem doesn’t mean someone else does.
But if you won’t take the time to see that, this isn’t a worthwhile conversation. so I’ll leave it at that.
Everyone needs to be able to see accurate data about how many observations there are on iNat. We blocked users are given skewed counts. This isn’t right. There isn’t any real justification for this, as it’s not like the observations are truly being kept secret from the blocked users, as they can see the observations if they log out. Anyone thinking this hiding of observations from blocked users is important for safety should not support the status quo, they should want iNat to give up it’s open access principles, and hide all observations from all logged out and new users. This would be a terrible idea. If iNat implements this, it will be the beginning of the end for it, and the world would have lost an important resource.
If iNat is going to adhere to its open access principles, it must allow everyone to see accurate observation counts. There really is no point in forcing blocked users to log out just for this.
There are platforms that do just that, and I don’t see that as a problem. If someone legitimately needs to see the observations, they can log in.
I would like to suggest adding a notepad icon on observations in the explore page in the same way as there are icons that signify the number of identifications made on an observation and a star to signify whether or not the observation has been favorited by a user. The notepad would signify observer notes attached to the observation. Has this been proposed before?
On the map, the observations are originally shown as orange, which is easily visible. But when you zoom in closer, they change to a very pale green, which I can hardly see at all. I would like the observations to stay orange, or to be some other dark, opaque color that you can see when you zoom in on the map.
Welcome to the forum! Could you add screenshots and specify which map/organism you’re looking at? I only see green pins when zoomed in looking at plants in Explore. But they don’t look very pale to me.
Clicking ‘next’ on an observation, when reached from the explore page, should result in seeing the next observation that was on the explore page, not another one of the user’s observations. That way you can scan through the explore page and get the full experience of each observation without continuously returning to the explore page and back to an observation.
Have you tried using the identify feature to look through observations?
That feature, by default, only shows the “Needs ID” observations. If one is “Exploring,” one may wish to see the RG observations equally. Fiddling with the filters can get tedious.
You can jump to Identify from Explore with the filters carrying over by clicking Identify on the filters. There might be one or two presets that are different (reviewed or RG) but that’s an easy fix.
It is the alternative but it looks bad compared to the bright tiles of Explore. I don’t think you should have to use Identify for this, since ‘Explore’ should be for exploring.
I imagine one exploring via skimming over the tiles, choosing an observation or chain thereof you want to see more of, skipping left/right via the buttons while on the observation, and then going back to the Explore page to continue scrolling downward.
One problem is the left/right buttons look like they should be scrolling through Explore, because that’s the page you accessed the observation from. However, they will take you out of the chain entirely.
I disagree that
Users could have reached an observation page in many ways, not just from the Explore interface. If a user didn’t get to an observation from an Explore page, what would these buttons do? Though I rarely use these buttons, to me it makes sense that the scroll buttons apply to the observer’s observations, since the arrows are right next to the observer’s username and profile pic.
I would also note that this would refer to what occurs on Observation pages (not the Explore/Observations Search Page), so it’s a bit different topic than the main focus, though it does relate to exploration of observations more broadly.
I want the behaviour to be contextual - if coming from ‘Explore’, arrows should scroll through ‘Explore’, if coming from their ‘Observations’ page, arrows should scroll through their observations. As it is, the arrows are confusing when coming from any page besides ‘Your Observations’. The arrows break the flow of using the ‘Explore’ page, in particular.
One of the ways to use ‘Explore’ is to find cool observations and visit them, and it would be nice to scroll through precisely the observations which were displayed on the ‘Explore’ tab once one has clicked on an observation to see it in more detail. The Explore tiles are more visually arresting (than identify), but the page dedicated to just one observation has more information. Explore is good for discovery, and the detailed page is good for information.
This would indeed be an absolute bonus for INaturalist! I was going to post this request within this topic, but saw that you beat me to it.
I am completely of the same opinion that it is necessary to be able to see multiple photos of the same sighting side by side.
Allow searching for all DQA criteria. For example, you currently can’t search for non-recent observations, observations with media (regardless of whether it’s images or sounds), observations with any location (no matter where it is), observations with incorrect dates, etc.
If I’m mistaken, and there are ways to search for these things, please tell me.
She probably means obscured plant observations. They are translucent, apparently too transparent.
Can you let the search box take coordinates like Google Maps?
So this works:
But currently this does not:
For a search, 2 coordinates are not enough.
We would need 2 coordinates and 1 radius, or 4 coordinates.
That’s not true, search already takes two coordinates, e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?lat=40.78094676128634&lng=-73.96688431611243 (using a default radius of 10)
