my very general, fence-sitting opinion is that
is a bit more difficult and nuanced than it may seem at face value. When reading through forum threads, it can seem like certain improvements, requested features, desired directions very clearly represent the needs and concerns of iNat’s userbase. But the forum represents a tiny, self-selected percentage of all iNat users. Over the last month, the number of daily ‘engaged users’ [users that have liked or posted something in the last 24 hours] has fluctuated between 80 and 160. The daily number of ‘pageviews’ (which does not represent unique viewers/users) over this last month has never exceeded 15,000. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people have used/interacted with iNat itself in the last month, so we’re talking multiple orders of magnitude difference in userbase
so I think transferring the thoughts, ideas, criticisms and more of the small pool of dedicated forum users, and extrapolating/applying those to the entire userbase, is a difficult task.
Even ignoring this forum/iNat dynamic, the iNat userbase spans an exceptionally diverse (in all senses/definitions of the word) range of different users. Purely looking at ‘interest in nature’ as a roughshod concept, you have everyone from ‘I just saw a bird land in my backyard that I don’t recognise, and I have a mild interest in putting a name to it, and my neighbour mentioned an app called iNaturalist to me so maybe I’ll upload a photo to see what happens, but otherwise never really think about nature’ through to ‘I am deeply passionate about this tribe of beetles and know everything single thing about them and iNaturalist is a deeply integrated part of my entire life’, and then there’s everyone on the whole spectrum in between these two end points!
By no means am I saying that I don’t think there can be some big improvements, both to features and the implementation/development process, and that staff haven’t made mistakes, because I think both of these things are true (in my opinion), but I also think it’s a very challenging and unenviable task to try to satisfy everyone.
I also broadly think that
is perhaps not the most accurate reflection in the specific context of what I discussed above, ie entire iNat userbase vs the small pool for forum users, and that
is a good example to highlight this.
I interact with many, many iNat users in any given month, most of them from Australia given that is my focus and where I live. This includes a wide range of demographics, and a wide range of different users across the spectrum I referred to above, spanning in-platform interactions, online presentations and workshops that I regular deliver (about iNat specifically and citizen science more broadly), in-person bioblitzes and nature surveys/walks that I regularly organise, lead and/or attend, Facebook groups, and more. Over the last 6 months I have spoken to many people (and by many I mean several thousand), both through online messaging and face-to-face about the Google grant, and asked their opinion on the situation, what they thought of the grant, the demo, and the general situation. The overwhelming majority (close to 99%) were completely indifferent and had no qualms whatsoever about it at all. It simply did not interest or impact their use of the platform in any shape or form, and so to them it wasn’t a debacle or a negative issue or something that made them angry or disappointed. I want to emphasise here that I am not saying it wasn’t an issue or that there weren’t problems with how it was handled etc, and I do not want to invalidate people’s feelings/thoughts about it at all who were/are concerned. Everyone is welcome to their own viewpoint and ethos, and I’m not judging anyone for their thoughts, whether they agree or disagree with mine (which I prefer to keep relatively private given my role as a moderator). The point I’m trying to make is that there are a lot of diverse opinions and perspectives on these issues out there, and relying solely on the forum’s voice will not always be reflective of the whole, or even part of the userbase.
I think what would perhaps be most helpful is trying to understand what user consultation would actually look like? What would be some propositions for how iNat staff can actually get an ‘accurate’ (as much as that is possible in a complex landscape) picture of what the userbase wants? Would it be a poll in an email with prescribed questions? An open feedback form? I don’t have any good answers myself, but I think it’s a necessary step to ensure that the broad spectrum of iNat users all have an opportunity to provide input (or at least, this opportunity is maximised).