iNaturalist is much better than ebird
- The peer review is open to more people and transparent. On eBird, your data can be rejected by a single local reviewer, and you might never even know that it happened. I have seen a lot of records on eBird that are wrong because of the mistakes of one reviewer.
- iNaturalist has API available, eBird does not. The result is that you are punished for not using eBird as your primary database. EDIT: ebird does have an api that can be used to view overall user data. My comment about the API is that you cannot use it to manage your own personal observations.
- The entire “checklist” process on eBird is not scientific as it influences a user toward certain identifications.
- eBird data is skewed by listers who submit data about rare bird sightings. One rare bird in a location could be shown as common due to multiple lists even if it is a vagrant.
- The “hotspot” concept on eBird is not consistent as some hotspots are very local while others are broad.
- As mentioned, eBird ignores non-bird data.
For these reasons, I think that iNaturalist is clearly the superior platform.