in general, it looks to me like each observation generally needs ~1.25 identifications from others to keep status quo. you could think of that as 0.25 to get an identification on observations that are never identified by the observer (1 out of 4 observations), plus another 1 identification by others on average on each observation. status quo would mean that 62.5% of verifiable observations then reach research grade based on that.
of course, if you want to do better than status quo, you need more identifications – either more from others, or more from the observers.
I am still in India… about 150 pages (~4500 obs) of coarse Araneae remaining for me… but yesterday I got the final push to dive deeper into the Leucauges (of India for now) at last and they got me hooked over night… It’s now only about 1000 needs ID - pretty doable… And that is just one of the many Family or Genus filters I could use in India after I am done with the Araneae
There are also about 3.5 million arachnida worldwide that need ID and over 300.000 that are more coarsly IDed then familiy (which is what often is doable at least and what I also love IDing worldwide) … at least we never get bored I guess
Ahhh, late summer in the US. Fresh-faced freshmen wandering college campuses snapping photos of landscaping plants that were put in to impress parents during recruitment tours, graduation ceremonies, and Move-in Week. Uploading those things (and many others) as Unknowns.
Can you guess what I’ve been doing with my afternoon?
Ah, but by the time they’re enrolling in a 400-level course (a very well attended course, by all indications), they can go out into the woods on campus and help make the wild plants there some of the most observed in the world!
I do hope the instructor is paying attention to the class observations and incorporates my copypasta into an upcoming quiz. Then we could discover who reads their notices.
Sadly, some of the offenders probably are in 400-level courses.
I’ve been checking profiles and such. So far, I haven’t found any projects attached to the accounts. If there were, I’d be dropping the instructors an e-mail or three.
For this IdentiFriday we have a new project https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/placeholder-backup
We started mid-August in Southern Africa for me - and I keep up with the African ones. Yesterday we reached out to the rest of the world, and already have over a thousand obs.
Similar to working thru Pre-Mavericks, they can be easy clicks. We look for
Tiny typos from people battling with phonetics to convert a scientific name to spelling in their first or second language. If you filter for your own location you will recognise what they intended.
Missing species which need to be flagged for curation (for plants please find the POWO link for curators)
Perhaps - this obs is for - frog, owl, bat … cryptic in the gloom.
For IDs we would like to be able to use all the info the observer added.
Unless you are the observer, please do not edit the text in the observation field “Placeholder backup”.
Thank you.
Fascinating! Am I correct in saying this is a traditional collection project? Or has someone figured out a way to coax the API into spitting out observations with placeholders?
Oh, and is the intent to provide a place where specialist identifiers can find observations and take them to something more than just Fungi, Plant, Animal? Or can generalist IDers like me go through and add Spiders, Butterflies, Legumes as the ID, while copying and pasting the placeholder text into the ID?
@jeanphilippeb and @rogue_biologist coax the API.
Feel free to ID at whatever level is comfortable - the placeholder remains visible for all subsequent identifiers.
You no longer need to copypasta. The placeholder text automagically goes to a dedicated Observation Field. Effortless, and grateful
