"Introduced" icon - change the (!) to an (i)

If I had to vote myself, I like the “i” someone proposed. I don’t have any personal issue with the “+” , I would just worry that some beginner users might think it was a button to click on (like an “add observations” button or something).

And I’m not really qualified to comment on best colors as I’m colorblind! The pink works fine for me as do any colors that are bright and easily distinguished from each other. If red is too associated with “danger”, I think changing that could be a good idea as well. I think @bouteloua proposed some reasonable color options earlier?

3 Likes

A letter is subject to translation into other languages in a way that a symbol isn’t. In English “i” may be short for “introduced,” but “и” wouldn’t communicate the same to speakers of Russian. Neither would “i” for that matter for those who use the site in German.

So an asterisk, or simply a more neutral color may be the way to go.

7 Likes

Yeah, seeing “и” would make me puzzled for a while. :sweat_smile:

1 Like

There’s nothing stopping the letter being localized for each language, I’d expect?

It was localised in those examples.

1 Like

I think asterisk is used for native/endemic? Or is it a star?
image

A “+” does look a bit like a button, but current result of clicking that icon brings up an info balloon, so it wouldn’t take you off page and it quickly becomes evident it’s not an add button
image

3 Likes

Btw that’s a good site on the topic. http://www.bookblack.ru/content/1.htm

1 Like

I suppose so, but if it’ll be localized, then why not simply spell it out?

No, it was translated :) If “i” suggests “introduced” in English but “и” doesn’t in Russian, a proper localization would involve exchanging it for a symbol that does immediately suggest “introduced” in Russian (whether it is “Ин” or “Инт” or even “+”) rather than just blindly copying the English usage :) (sorry, nitpicking I guess, but it’s good to remember you can change that as needed).

I guess just to save space? In any case a popup would indicate it clearly, same as it currently does :)

2 Likes

i think “i” is not a good idea because :information_source: is a symbol commonly used to indicate more information, not introduced status.

i think “!” is just fine because it’s not an indicator of danger to me, just a warning, as in :warning:. a warning doesn’t indicate that any particular action needs to be taken. (maybe a change in color from pink to yellow might make that clearer?)

i’m okay with “*” or :eight_spoked_asterisk: as well, though to me, that would be more appropriate for a taxon that has something wrong with it or is being debated or something like that.

i don’t think we should go too far down the path of trying to distinguish between introduced and invasive/noxious because i think that’s probably overkill for what the core mission of the platform is.

8 Likes

Yeah, I hadn’t thought of the “i” as a lower case info button, but that is definitely true.

I don’t think that the translation of the letter “i” would be a huge problem though. The conservation abbreviations are often taken from English (like the VU for the Katipo above or IUCN categories). They don’t get translated and work well.

In this case I think what is needed is mostly a distinctive symbol. Whether it is a letter associated with the word is kind of a bonus but not necessary to it working properly.

A capital I in a font that has the arms on top and bottom of the letter (unlike the forum font) might be sufficiently distinguished from the “i” info button.

If I didn’t know better I would probably assume an asterisk meant a taxonomic dispute or is otherwise in debate as @pisum suggested.

Replacing it with hazard yellow — “attention”, “beware”, “urgent”, “watch out” — wouldn’t address the reason behind the requested change.

4 Likes

i don’t think i would characterize yellow as “hazard” yellow, “urgent”, or “beware”. it’s just a warning or alert of potential issues. there may or may not be an actual issue. to me, that works well for introduced species because it lets me know that it’s potentially problematic because it’s not native.

2 Likes

I was responding to your message where you used the warning sign emoji. Yellow is often used to indicate caution. The point is there doesn’t need to be an urgent warning/caution symbol. (Most non-native species are benign — or beneficial — in most places. Only a few are very problematic.)

5 Likes

yeah… my earlier comment applies to general yellow signs and specifically to :warning:. it’s just an alert or warning of potential issues, not a claim of a clear and present danger. just as an example, there are yellow deer crossing signs that just let you know there might be deer crossing the road… but there might not be… usually if there is a clear and present danger, you’ll have red on the sign.

i think the clearest icon to indicate introduced that i’ve seen was in a regional plant guide that used a small version of the boundaries of the continental US with an arrow pointing into it. unfortunately, something like that is probably too regional in its proper usage. i thought about maybe a globe with an arrow pointing from one side to another, but i think that could be interpreted as a spinning earth. but maybe the arrow by itself (something like :leftwards_arrow_with_hook: but rotated counterclockwise by 90 deg) might be meaningful and relatively unambiguous.

2 Likes

Thanks for going so far as to delve into what it would look like. I think it’s really worthwhile for moderators and staff to think about what the many people who are being trained by this platform learn when they see this symbol, and whether it reflects the biological reality of introduced species, that not all of them are an immediate threat to the environment.

Edit: did a quick search and found some examples of what I’m thinking about… people discussing management
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/5149657
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/29220069
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/12744830
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/12892995
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/24891415
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/35681327
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/30338653
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/38065684
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/37790608
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/12600816
Users should answer these question for each other, not a default icon

2 Likes

i think any introduced species should set off an involuntary, very loud alarm sound through the user’s speakers when they open the observation.

(just kidding)

11 Likes

I din’t get the messages about “a few being a danger”. No, 99% are, and 1% are parasites who are “monophagus” when choosing host, and host is an invasive species. And even then you don’t know if they’re not evolutionary flexible and can’t choose a local species in the future. And I tell it again - danger. Even pretty dandelions. No way local ecosystems get benefits from tons of foreign species. A group of species can get a food source from them, but is it beneficial for the whole system? No, again it creates imbalance.
About if that iNat gives. The tutorials for new members were discussed, maybe we need to speak it there, that if you’re not a professional you should think out your moves about new species for you. And if you really want to do something you should find local, m, someone who’s dealing with that, and ask them which ways do you have.

I think it’s more complicated than this.

I can only discuss my own region, but some species that are undergoing range expansion due to climate change may be marked as introduced - but they are not invasive or dangerous.

Some people plant pecans, persimmons, osage orange, dogwood, baldcypress, magnolias, gingko, redwood, medlar, tecojote, pawpaw, the list goes on and on - in places where they don’t grow on their own and can be considered introduced. They are not dangerous.

Some plants from Europe, like dandelions, are marked as introduced but others, like stinging nettle, are not. Daffodils and peonies come up for a hundred years in the same place and don’t spread here - they are often useful markers of old house sites.

Chicory might be a horrible noxious weed elsewhere in places where it’s introduced but here it’s just a chill summer plant that hangs out at the side of the road. If city government tackles it with herbicide, it gets replaced by roundup-resistant pigweed, which is a new problem for evil big ag farmers now, and in part drives the reformulation of pesticides.

Some introduced species, like domesticated corn and ducks, are the byproduct of human activity and not likely to flourish on their own. Peregrine falcons in Illinois have been described to me as “frankenstein’s monster” in terms of their reintroduction genetics and could possibly be considered introduced.

The microorganisms in your body are introduced from every place you go and food that you eat. Definitely not a cause for alarm.

Some species here, like common earthworms and chinese mantids, are so prevalent and widespread that there’s not much anyone can do about them to restore “balance.” It’s true, and it’s tragic, but it’s not something we can fix. We pour endless amounts of chemicals and time and money into restoring tiny fragmented parcels of land, and maybe even a few big ones, and protecting ones that seem to be healthy, but the damage was honestly done when people started (insert your favorite: agriculture/colonialism/cars/ships/plastic/global commerce/existing/something I haven’t thought of).

You have to prioritize what is a cause for alarm.

5 Likes

I may be wrong, but Introduced in the iNat context is usually through a direct action of humans… deliberately or seeds carried on shoes and luggage etc. Natural range extension is not an introduction in that sense.

This context is, I think, captive/cultivated, and a different issue to introduced/native/endemic.

It may seem a “chill summer plant”, but there can be unseen issues, such as pollinators preferentially visiting flowers of that over other native/endemic species that then struggle to persist, or provide corridors along which pest bugs can move through the wider environment. Even just by being there, they are displacing native species… but I think you do raise a valid point re: how it is removed and the consequence in the environment. Just whacking something with RoundUp and then letting “whatever wants the space” fight for it, is not how you would go about restoring natives anyway! Here in NZ that practise is usually about visibility, so that tractors don’t barrel through weed hidden fences or ditches or so that shoulders of roads can be seen to be safe places to pull over (but that is usually mown rather than sprayed).

And also consider that by showing the cost of restoration, we send a very powerful message of “don’t sc@#w it up in the first place”

3 Likes