If it’s a significant percentage, then a sensible analysis of a subset of the data would pick up that it is happening. If deemed significant enough of an issue, then an effort can be made to vet the data for the offending observations, and either correct, exclude, or establish modifiers to compensate… The best thing we can do as individual observers, is be as consistent in what we do as we can, to make our “errors” easier to detect and correct for!
2 Likes
Yes I agree here with the opt in/opt out premise. If a new user is particularly Squeamish then they should be offered the option to be given a “dead organism” warning when scrolling through the Explore page. For the many of us who are particularly fine with seeing roadkill, etc. then we shouldn’t need the extra barriers when we are “Exploring” through observations. I will also agree on limiting it to certain taxa groups like Vertebrata, because if not then every washed up snail or clam shell on the beach that finds it way to iNat will have a blurred out “dead organism” warning, which I think most should agree is excessive. 
4 Likes
I attempted to create a new thread along these lines, not realizing this one already existed, so I’ll just copy and paste my suggestion in to here, and then explain my ideas specifically compared to what’s suggested in this thread.
(keep in mind I haven’t read the whole thread, just most of the ones near the top. I’ll continue reading through the rest after I post this)
==
Official, optional warning for dead or graphically injured animals
I tried searching through the new features to check if anyone had already requested this specifically, but I don’t see one, so I’m submitting it. If someone else has, I’ll copy and paste my suggestions into that thread instead. Thanks.
Platform(s), Mobile, website
Description of need:
Allowing people to post pictures of dead animals, which is important for research, while still protecting users who may be disturbed by such images.
Feature request details:
I would like to suggest that an option appear when creating an observation that asks, “Is this an observation of a dead or heavily injured animal?” And if yes, the observation would include, as its first picture, a warning of what the observation contains, specifically a picture that would be separate from the images in the observation itself somehow, so that the artificial intelligence won’t be ‘trained’ to it, as that’s a concern I’ve seen people bring up about graphic image warnings.
Furthermore, this image being displayed would be completely optional, with people able to turn it on or off in their settings, though everyone would be able to apply it to their (and preferably other people’s) observations. This would mean that people who are unfazed by dead animals can continue identifying them just like they did before, and people who are uspet by them will still be able to enjoy and contribute to the site without being harmed.
Other people have suggested blurring the photo, or taking a picture of just one non-graphic part of the animal first, but that’s not always possible, and wouldn’t help everyone.
I have a road I have to bike down to get to work, and I’ve found many animals there that have been hit by cars, and while it is obviously very important to record this data so that hopefully in the future measures can be put in place to prevent these deaths, it will still be upsetting for people to be scrolling through my observations, or even the area observations, only to come upon these images. I’ve been including warning images in the observations, but this might confuse the AI, and only solves the problem for me, personally.
I would like to see everyone have the option to warn for dead animals / graphically injured animals with ease, without potentially confusing the AI, while still allowing people to quickly identify them without having to click past a separate picture.
I think this option would improve the site for a lot of people, and help new users feel more comfortable and safe exploring the observations in their area.
To summarize:
- New feature would be able to be added while creating the observation, and others would be able to add it after it’s posted, the same way people can vote for whether an observation is wild or captive.
- This feature displaying would be optional, with people able to enable or disable it from their account settings, though this should not stop them from applying it to protect others.
- This would help make the site safer for people who are distressed by images of death, while still freely allowing people to record important research data.
===
The main differences I see between my suggestions and the ones here is that mine would be asked upon creating observations, and could be added by anyone after the observation has been created, rather than relying on people adding annotations. (since most people don’t add annotations, even to their own observations).
Mine would also include animals that are still alive, but are very heavily injured. I recall seeing on another site a photo of a lioness who had been gored, and while she was still alive and walking around, her back leg and side were completely shredded, with bones and musculature visible.
And the problem with giving this warning for all observations annotated as “dead” is that not all dead animals are equally graphic and disturbing.
A clam shell means there’s definitely a clam that died, but people are not likely to be as upset by a picture of a clam shell as they are of a deer that has been hit by a car and is in, for example, multiple peices. Even just scattered animal bones would still be annotated as dead, but are not likely to upset people to the same degree that an actively rotting carcass would.
To the people arguing against this on the basis that they aren’t bothered, that’s why it would be optional, you could click the option to opt out, and you wouldn’t even have to be aware the feature exists, because it wouldn’t impact you at all, the only thing it would do would be to allow you to help protect others, without inconveniencing yourself.
Please do not shame people for being upset by images of dead animals, it’s entirely natural and normal. There’s nothing wrong with not being upset by these images, but you cannot say that since you don’t have a problem with it, other people need to just toughen up. Your experiences are not universal, and other people deserve respect.
Adding a feature to this site that can filter graphic pictures of dead / heavily injured animals at will will not only make the site safer for the people who already use it, it will make it easier for new people to join.
5 Likes
A further suggestion (which would make its implementation more complicated, unfortunately) would be to include the option to filter pictures for yourself only, so that you can have full control of what you do and don’t see. If you’re regularly going through and adding annotations to dead animals, but then a few just really upset you, you can filter those particular ones, without sacrificing your ability to identify quickly.
It would, in fact, be preferable to have a filter for those things for people with phobias. There’s no reason to mock people. Giving people the option to filter certain categories of life would harm no one, and would help lots of people.
1 Like
I wasn’t mocking phobias, just stating that those groups are often two which trigger a lot of phobias. I understand phobias are a serious concern. I also understand that life involves unpleasant things (both human and non-human life) and trying to protect everyone from disturbing facts is not always the right course of action. Hence that grouchy post.
10 Likes
Replying to the original post, I think that would be a great feature, it would have to be opt-in though, and maybe is turned off by default. I read some people’s comments about how it should only be available for vertebrates. Which I absolutely disagree with and will be disappointed if this feature is implemented only for vertebrates. I love Jumping spiders and other invertebrates, and I absolutely don’t want to see dead ones. It’s something I really dislike about iNaturalist. Not that it’s wrong to post dead photos, or ID dead creatures, I just personally hate seeing something that was once so interesting and alive with its insides everywhere and mangled and sad with no way to turn it off. I like observing life, not death.
7 Likes
Me too - I’m on a quiet mission to Annotate as Dead meanwhile.
Won’t be able to activate Blur without annotation?
4 Likes
I don’t think it’s that simple. How much work is involved in making sure the photos are entered and annotated correctly? How do you ensure it doesn’t get abused? What if only one photo shows the organism dead and others not? What about plants, Fungi, bacteria? What about injured/damaged? Should that count?
Secondly, how many people are actually affected? Is it <0.1% of iNat users, or >10%? Is it regular users or once-offs? What percentage of observations are dead and shown in a way that is potentially uncomfortable - 1%, 0.1%, 10%?
Factor that with the technical complexity to design, implement, test, roll-out and govern the feature and I think it needs to be of significant benefit (to the value of the platform’s purpose) to do.
Not so sure that’s the case and the current situation would be the expected state on an organism observation/record site with a purpose for objective science record rather than subjective exploration.
7 Likes
is the secondary purpose. iNat says its primary purpose is to engage people with nature. And among those not-all-scientists blurring dead … actually even here in the iNat forum 27 votes is convincing.
4 Likes
I recognize that some people will be greatly disturbed by seeing photos of dead/injured animals. I certainly don’t enjoy seeing that myself despite having a lot of experience dealing with such specimens. But engaging people with nature includes encountering organisms that are both alive and dead. Spend any time in nature and you’ll experience it. Also, to me, a photo of a pinned insect or a taxidermy mount is a lot different than one of a road-killed mammal. I’m really not sure how you address the many different situations a viewer of iNat photos will encounter.
4 Likes
There’s a difference between taking a hike and coming upon a dead animal unexpectedly, and using a website and finding pictures of dead animals. One of these things is uncontrollable, another can be controlled. Just because we can’t control things in nature doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to protect people where we can.
Not wanting to see dead animals doesn’t mean you aren’t ready or willing to interact with nature. We should let people engage when and how they want to, in a way that is safest for them. We lose nothing by letting people filter out pictures of dead animals, and will gain more people willing to join the site, as well as making a lot of the people already here feel more welcome.
Movies get ratings so that people know what to expect going in, so they can choose whether or not they want to watch it. A simple and optional warning for “This observation contains images of dead animals” will literally just let people chose whether or not to click it, and will at least give them time to mentally prepare themselves to view the images.
It wouldn’t have to be time consuming and difficult. Just let people click a box when uploading an observation / viewing an observation that says “This has pictures of dead animals in it” and for those that opt in to the feature, the first picture will be replaced with a simple warning. It would be as simple to use as identifying observations. Is there a dead animal? Yes? You just click the checkbox, and it will be filtered for people who have the filter turned on.
6 Likes
It could be abused just as easily as anything else on the site. The potential for something being abused doesn’t mean it doesn’t get implimented. Flagging and voting features should be included, just like with everything else on the site. I’ve flagged multiple completely inappropriate observations, that doesn’t mean the site was a mistake.
5 Likes
Well, this has been debated for a couple years at least and if the implementation of this feature was reasonably easy it probably would’ve happened by now. I don’t feel strongly for or against it, since I wouldn’t use it, but I can only hope such a feature won’t complicate using the site.
2 Likes
When I say “you” I am using the general you, not at anyone in particular.
The “debate” seems mostly to be from people who don’t care either way protesting that it’s unecessary, while those who do want or need it try to plead their case. It doesn’t really seem like debate so much to me as just people thinking that since they don’t need something, that means no one does.
Just because a lot or even most people don’t have any problem with their hearing doesn’t mean subtitles shouldn’t be included in movies and shows. Just because a lot or even most people have no trouble with stairs doesn’t mean ramps or elevators shouldn’t be built.
Just because a lot or even most people have no problem with graphic images of dead animals doesn’t mean we shouldn’t offer people a way to filter those out.
If you don’t care either way, then why argue against it? It would be completely optimal, so nothing for you or anyone else who thinks it’s unnecessary would change.
Aside from the inherent positive of it letting more people use the site safely, it would have the added bonus of getting more people to notice and start applying annotations, since most people don’t use them at all. Most observations of animals aren’t even marked alive or dead, even though it’s the easiest one to know. If people started actually categorizing observations in their head of “this one’s dead, this one’s alive” they’d be more likely to add the correct annotations to their observations.
If you think it’s unnecessary because you wouldn’t use it, then cool! You would not be impacted at all because it would be optional. There’s no reason for you to argue against it when it wouldn’t impact you at all, since that seems to be like, the only real reason anyone in this thread is arguing against it.
Most of the arguments in this thread can be boiled down to “I wouldn’t find this feature helpful to me, so I don’t think it should be used to help anyone”.
This is a common enough idea, aggravating as it is. Not everything had to be helpful for you personally for it to be helpful and necessary for others.
If you are watching a movie with someone who has hearing problems, and you have no issue with subtitles at all, then you’d put on the subtitles so everyone can enjoy the movie, not argue that they aren’t needed because you personally don’t need them to understand what the characters are saying.
iNaturalist is meant to help collect data, but it’s also a community of people who want t share and enjoy in nature. And yes, death is a natural part of our world, but just because it’s natural and something you’re likely to come across eventually if you’re outside doesn’t mean we should force people to see it when they’re just hoping to have a little fun scrolling through pictures of their favorite animals or something.
Just because you’re likely to see roadkill at some point in your life doesn’t mean you should have to be subjected to it just so you can be a part of the iNaturalist community.
When I find a species with a lot of observations of dead animals, I bookmark the species so that I can go through and add annotations to the observations to mark them as dead or alive as needed.
With an update like this, you wouldn’t even have to mark your own observations if you really didn’t feel like it, the way you don’t even have to add annotations or even identifications to your own observations if you really don’t want to. You could literally just upload pictures of things without ever adding an identification, even a broad one. And eventually those things would be identified, because this is a community driven site that is maintained by the community. If you don’t care at all about marking pictures of dead animals, you wouldn’t have to, because other people who do want to filter them, or even people who don’t, but want to let others, could mark them for you, and it wouldn’t take any more effort on your part than someone adding annotations to your observation.
If your only reason for arguing against this feature request is that “I don’t mind pictures of dead animals” or “If you aren’t okay with pictures of dead animals, you should stay inside because nature won’t cater to you” or “I don’t care either way”
Then just ask yourself: What is the harm in creating a feature that will help people if nothing will change for you? If you’re perfectly happy seeing graphic pictures of dead animals, then what is the harm in letting other people filter them out?
Just because something isn’t helpful to you doesn’t mean no one should have access to it.
I have hearing problems, and a lot of the time I need to have subtitles on to understand what characters are saying. It would be completely unfair to me for people who hear perfectly fine to argue that we shouldn’t put subtitles on because they don’t need them.
If you’re reading through this thread and all you’re thinking is, “That’s unnecessary” then cool! The good news is that it would be optional, so absolutely nothing would change for you at all.
If you don’t care either way, if you wouldn’t use it, if you don’t think it’s necessary, then you have no reason to argue against it, because it wouldn’t impact you at all. The only thing this feature would change would be making the site more accessible for people who do need it.
5 Likes
I think one of the main concerns with adding a required check box is how much time it would add to the process of making an observation. Operationally, it’s simple to tick a box, yes, but over millions of observations, it becomes a lot of time (and many clicks over many devices) for a feature that isn’t necessarily core to iNat but which impacts a feature that is (observation upload). I think a lot of arguments aren’t necessarily to not implement such a system, but a) if it will be implemented to do so in a way that isn’t burdensome to uploaders and b) if it should be a priority among many other potential changes that could be made to iNat given limited resources to implement those changes.
Also, in case you’re unaware, you can respond directly to other user’s posts which will make the conversation much easier for readers to follow as they’ll see what specifically your comments are referencing. You can also edit previous posts if you have to add something instead of adding several posts in a row, which can improve readability as well.
8 Likes
Think about website working though, it’s already having huge problems, when they’ll be solved it can be useful to add a blurr to gore photos or have it as a personalized setting, but it’s not a top priority, if you support it then vote shows it, this topic discussion is just opinions and it’s staff who decide if it’s added or no, not people who are ok with seeing dead tissues.
3 Likes
Fair enough. I was thinking of how the observations are viewed (syncing with Ala.org and other recording systems), but true the site overall has a broader purpose and use.
That’s the whole site here then. Maybe it needs to be added to the welcome email or similar, but the site as a whole would come with a ‘observations may include dead organisms’ notice and let you decide if you want to participate or not.
How do you know, are you an engineer? I work in IT and this kind of thing is said all the time for things that are deemed simple by a business user but are not simple technical solutions. The fact it hasn’t been done already probably highlights it’s at least not completely straightforward.
And you’ve kind of ignored all the earlier comments about how much complexity there is in just getting the site to clearly define a picture which has a dead organism.
This is fair, but if the change is not technically viable/supportable, that’s a decision to be made when joining. Are you able to deal with potentially feeling uncomfortable (which can be avoided with another mouse-click) sometimes, for the sake of broader engagement? If not, that’s ok! But that’s a decision for the user, sad as it is that someone won’t participate in such a wonderful platform. If you can do it in real life, can you do it virtually where you can move away from it instantly?
3 Likes
This discussion is becoming more of an argument than a constructive feature-focused one so I’m closing it for a day. Feature requests discussions should be about whether or not the feature would be a good one, and what could make it work best, not about whether other people are wrong.
1 Like
This topic was automatically opened after 24 hours.