I guess I’m lucky. I’ve never seen any appalling behavior. I did once get a hectoring (and undeserved) comment, but it fell far short of egregious and certainly didn’t warrant any action from a curator.
3 Likes
Not Citizen Science – iNaturalist differs from many similar citizen science projects in
several ways. Traditionally, citizen science projects have generally involved scientists
recruiting non-scientists in an effort to collect research data and provide opportunities for
the public to engage in science. We believe that traditional citizen science projects lack the
ability to foster deep, long-term investment in the natural world among the general public,
because they are discrete and do not directly benefit their participants. By focusing instead
on facilitating a lifestyle of data collection, iNaturalist encourages data contribution through
the self-interest of an avid hobbyist, not the altruistic desire to assist in someone else’s work.
This paragraph really speaks to me.
16 Likes
DNA barcoding?
1 Like
This describes why I started and continue to use iNaturalist. I love the collection aspect and enjoy ticking observations into a higher level of identification, be it from unknown to something or into research grade.
6 Likes
That comment from tiwane was March 2019.
3 Likes
Unlikely to get implemented in a timely and efficient fashion, for it has no bearing on “data contributors” (a.k.a. “users”) or the platform. iNat stands out among other “naturalist platforms” by its little policing of contributors or control over their production (save for a few legal requirements, copyright hatespeech etc). Sometimes feels like a social experiment - as if they would watch “ants in the jar” self-organize and self-regulate, devising their own collective behaviour and rules of the anthill along the way, with as little interference as possible. :)
2 Likes
I don’t see that as a shortcoming or a conflict at all, but as an inevitable consequence of
- an ever increasing number of users, and
- the level of freedom users have on iNat.
Not even considering the lack of experts for many taxa or geographic regions, many observations will never get to RG simply because the evidence provided isn’t enough for an ID to a high enough taxonomic level, and that is completely okay because one of the main goals of iNat is to connect people to nature. This includes beginners (and advanced users) uploading observations that don’t show enough identifiable features. And while the number of non-RG observations are constantly increasing (as another user said; like they would in any good museum collection), these things are also increasing at the same time:
- the number of RG observations
- the number of species that have never been photographed before now publicly available to see (currently over 9,000 species)
- the number of newly described species found through iNat
- and many more that I don’t have in mind right now
I think we have to think of iNat less as this complete, perfectly curated dataset where every observation will be RG eventually, and more like one of the biggest collections of public biodiversity data with some imperfect parts. A very large part of this data is of high quality and can be useful for research, and a part of this data may not hold any scientific “value” and may never reach RG, but at least someone, somewhere used iNat to connect with nature, and that is valuable in itself in my opinion. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.
20 Likes
I think it feels this way because of some of the freedom offered to users (that usually isn’t). Like with observation fields. Even if you take a fairly simple example… I want to see reptiles and their prey…
there’s a field called “eating”… it seems like i’d want to look at those.
there’s also one called “predating”… maybe those too.
there’s also one called “scavenging”… ok so maybe it’s hierarchical. eating includes predating and scavenging but predating and scavenging are mutually exclusive.
Maybe it makes sense for inat to slowly pull these types of data relationships into the core product to eliminate observation field redundancy, but how would they do that? Which ones to start with? They seem like they’re highly dependent on the organism. What are the observation fields if it’s phytoplankton eating instead of reptiles?
This leaves the ants to their self-organization. Each having their own anthill with its own rules dependent on taxa. Reptiles might use “eating” but phytoplankton something else.
Maybe inat could get to the point of pulling specific interactions into the core product for specific taxa, but even that would be difficult. This leaves everyone rooting for the ants. Hoping the ants can come up with something that satisfies everyone. Organizes the multi-species observations that can then be pulled into core with solidified observation fields that properly document interactions like “eating”.
1 Like
My last words are a variation of ‘Let’s agree to disagree’. I think discussions need closure even if resolution is not forthcoming.
1 Like
I agree with your assessment. iNat is popular for a reason.
‘Shortcomings’ is a reference to the previous post, not a description of observations not reaching RG.
1 Like
Interesting discussion, thanks for starting it @AdamWargon. Given the vague direction, some rambling thoughts bouncing off what others have said haha.
Tension results anywhere that objectives or values are misaligned at all. Any situation involving multiple people, or multiple groups of people (where a group is internally aligned within itself but not aligned with other groups) is going to have tension when subjects that involve those objectives or values come up. If a tension point is pushed, conflict will result. If the tension is anticipated beforehand and is discussed amicably then it might be possible to avoid conflict, but conflict (clashing about the disagreements) itself isn’t bad because it forces a conversation about how to resolve the differences. Better to do that earlier than later, when different groups have firmly established their ruts in the ground going in competing directions. What can be bad about conflict is the manner in which it’s addressed, which is more likely (but not necessarily) to be done poorly when you’re more strongly invested in your perspective.
I think iNat has been as successful as it has because it found a way to align different groups really well. Laypeople and biodiversity data scientists have different values and motivations, but there is some overlap, and if you give them a good vision that contributes to both of their values then they can happily walk in the same direction for a while, without one of them getting frustrated that the other is constantly stopping to photograph bugs.
The outcomes of iNat are net positive; because the values of people involved are mostly aligned it means that resolving a disagreement will generally have benefits for everyone. Rather than a zero-sum disagreement where someone is going to feel like they’ve lost something if the discussion doesn’t go exactly their way. I think that’s what it means to say these axes reinforce each other - the different values and motivations, mostly aligned but not quite, encourage the development of a synthesis solution more powerful than what they would have done on their own.
But there are also going to be instances where some people have a particularly strong opinion on the right way to achieve a particular value and for whatever reason clash with what others think about how to achieve it, and feel like they are constantly running into a wall. Never a dull moment!
10 Likes
- Observers vs Identifiers
I rarely upload observations anymore because of the perennial complaints on the forum about the lack of identifiers. I’m devoting my limited time to annotations for a project I volunteered for and eBird. I’d rather not be part of a “problem” if I’m at least not part of the “solution.”
4 Likes
My feeling is that if you identify at the same or higher rate than you observe, it’s all good. I don’t post all that many observations and the ones I do post I spend a fair amount of time making sure they are as good as possible (cropped, adjusted as needed). That takes time – more than just snap a pic and upload – but it’s worth it to make IDs easier.
8 Likes
The Forum only hosts a very small part of the iNaturalist community. I’m not saying concerns expressed here aren’t valid (more identifiers would be great!), but any sort of internet forum is a very small and biased sample.
11 Likes
Plus it’s only a tiny percentage of lurkers who actually comment on any online platform, so even what you see on the forum is biased in favour of the people who speak up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule
“In Internet culture, the 1% rule is a general rule of thumb pertaining to participation in an Internet community, stating that only 1% of the users of a website actively create new content, while the other 99% of the participants only lurk”
6 Likes
We don’t lurk. We read along. The silent majority also serve as part of iNat.
3 Likes
I don’t know about “We”, but with over 7,000 posts, you @DianaStuder can hardly be called a lurker!
6 Likes
That could actually be another source of tension: Posters vs Lurkers
1 Like
Inherent conflicts on iNat?
Well, yeah, there are humans here, all with ideas and opinions. Conflict is not necessarily a bad thing. I think it can indicate growth, sometimes, handled well. Other times, it’s just way too peopley.
1 Like
I prefer to classify some of those as sit-and-wait predators … I mean posters. ;-)
4 Likes