Dear all, I´ve already read many interesting posts on the data quality and biases, but is someone aware of “scientific” comparison of data qualtiy assesed by iNaturalist compared to expert knowledge? How valid iNat IDs are for some taxonomic groups? And if something like the “community-taxon” is im…

Great question, and I appreciate the interest in the more formalized “scientific” information you seek compared to more anecdotal “I feel like…” types of responses to this type of question. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with Google Scholar ( scholar.google.com ), but it’s a great way to search for p…

If you’re interested in this type of info for certain groups, it’s best to reach out to taxon experts on iNaturalist. Also, it’s worth recalling that “expert knowledge” is also not a consistent variable depending on the group and context–when I visit museum collections I sometimes find dozens of mi…

iNat has the (online) advantage that the ID is not ‘carved in stone’. If the taxonomy changes it can be automagically updated, with the previous synonyms still searchable. When a new to iNat scientist trawls thru existing records, they can make appropriate changes. Public discussions on an obs can…

[image] jmillsand: axonomic groups. Several articles I found also noted that geography plays a strong role since the AI often suggests species from more well-observed areas (e.g., the USA) in areas that are under-observed, though this trend seems to be getting better in recent years: In 2018, …

I feel like … especially Bryologists (moss experts) and Lichenologists have a ‘hard time’ here regarding ID quality. Both those groups are common (I mean the observed taxa, not the respective experts - these are actually a rare species here on the platform) and speciose in most areas, easy targets…

Well, what is “expert knowledge” to you? The professor emeritus of botany whose life work is the taxonomy of a branch of plantae? The English literature professor with a passion for botany with co-author credit on publications of the former? The government or NGO employee with the job title “vege…

iNat data is created by expert knowledge, so I don’t know how you can compare them, if there’re serious problems with ids it means experts aren’t playing their role. @teellbee at least this article is not really a separate entity, it’s our project here on iNat

This is a fascinating discussion with many great points, but maybe what @alexwirth was asking was actually “how accurate is iNaturalist’s Computer Vision”? with “expert” opinion assumed accurate. This would be hard to assess from existing records in part because many of us pull up the CV for an obse…

[image] janetwright: how accurate is iNaturalist’s Computer Vision”? If that is the question, a bad workman blames his tools. CV is a suggestion - we don’t all have a row of field guides, or a university library, or the time and skill to ‘key it out’. CV is a good place to start, but it is ou…

iNat data quality in comparison to 'expert knowledge'

General

pisum February 17, 2023, 1:27pm 2

not sure how “scientific” this is, but you may want to read this if you haven’t already: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/identification-quality-on-inaturalist/7507.

Topic		Replies	Views
Identification Quality On iNaturalist General	19	8370	November 17, 2019
What iNaturalist is for General	49	6553	September 7, 2019
The problem with blindly using biodiversity databases Nature Talk	67	5478	February 22, 2021
Why not empower recognised experts? General	132	9994	August 3, 2020
Snubbing iNat data General	84	3202	February 6, 2026

iNat data quality in comparison to 'expert knowledge'

Related topics