I don’t expect a survey to be perfect. But given that a number of points that regularly come up as major concerns for identifiers were not even mentioned at all, it raises serious questions about the survey design and, more broadly, about the topic of this thread, namely, whether staff are out of touch with users and whether our feedback about our needs and concerns is getting heard. The points that were omitted are not minor complaints by one or two malcontent users; they are points that have featured prominently in discussions for quite some time. It therefore seems puzzling that it was not felt to be worthwhile to ask IDers about these things.
The survey was not presented as “help us prioritize what we should work on”, where it would make sense to include only those topics that it is feasible to address in the near future. It was presented as “help us understand your experience of iNat as an IDer”. As such, the omission of key points will mean that any picture it provides of these experiences is badly skewed. The fact that we had the option to leave comments does not change this. The way the survey was formulated also did not leave a lot of room for answers that would signal that more follow-up questions are needed or there are other topics that concern us (e.g. “none of the above”/“something else”) – in other words, it would be quite possible to analyze the survey responses and draw completely wrong conclusions about what matters to us.
I appreciate that staff is taking the time to conduct surveys of user groups, and I recognize how difficult it is to design a good survey, but based on my experience with the IDer survey, I fear that these surveys will not end up providing useful insights – and I fear that this may not be recognized by those looking at the survey results. In the context of this thread, it seems important to communicate that experience of the survey, or it will end up exacerbating the disconnect between staff and identifiers rather than bridging it.
Is it the right direction? We’ll see in a couple of years time.
My crystal ball is a bit cloudy, but there are some visible trends:
General recognition tools are getting better and will surpass CV suggestions in a couple of years. Currently it is a draw.
Identifiers rely on outside means (keys) already so this is not an existential threat.
Identifier recruitment is minimal and identification instructions are lacking. Something will have to give, I am watching what will it be.
The comparative advantages of iNaturalist remain: good data structure and the ability to discuss things through comments or on the forum with light handed moderation.
Absolutely. What we don’t know and can’t know is how much of the churning is due to organizational life cycle, how much is due to poor management and what is the real-time learning curve for leadership of how to operate in this new context. When an org goes from start up to growth to maturity a lot changes internally. It has to. And even perfectly communicated changes (not saying that is what happened here) can feel muddy and occluded just because the expectation about what communication should be is no longer met.
Keep in mind that it’s the users of iNat that benefit from your IDs, not the iNat organization. If you don’t feel it’s worth your time to the global naturalist/ecologist/biologist/conservation community, then don’t ID. But don’t think that you’re providing free labor to the iNat organization (it’s a non-profit and is not a “user” of the data).
The second is clearly debateable. In fact, it’s precisely the topic of this thread, so your conclusion seems to beg the question.
Does improved communications include less (or no) communication? And who gets to decide what counts as success?
The OP makes the folowing claim:
This seems to wrongly assume (in line with your first point), that the users should have had some sort of say in what was essentially a funding decision. If a negative backlash to it was inevitable, the worst course of action was to firstly make a premature announcement, and then compound that by allowing users to debate the matter on the forum before the rest of the details had been worked out. This led directly to bad press for the organisation and prompted some users to either delete their accounts, or to remove their comments and identifications. Even now, there are still some people on the forum and elsewhere inciting iNaturalist users to take these sorts of intemperate actions. It would have been far better to avoid all prior consultation, and just ask users what they thought of the fully working demo (which in reality was received much more calmly than most people expected).
My experience with human beings and their organizations tells me that very many do think that less communication is better, and that these people are absolutely horrid to work with, for, or around and usually end up being driven out, harming their organizations, or sabotaging their stated missions.
This is simply because those with strong feelings on the matter have either:
already left iNat
feel they have sufficiently presented their objections to these exact issues in the other threads, or
realized that their opinions hold no weight with iNat leadership, so there is no point.
I know of a few people in category 1, but most are divided between 2 and 3. And sure, organizations can carry on for a long time with unhappy contributors when those people have no realistic alternatives to jump ship for, but I really don’t think they realize the effect lowered morale will have on the site at large, and in particular the experiences new users have.
In my experience, this type of problem arises when a person views information as power, and that certain folks don’t “deserve” the information. There are certainly other reasons why communication may decrease - fatigue, burnout, etc. There is a related problem to the “info as power” issue which is telling one group of people one thing to save one’s rear end, while reality is different. I’ve watched that happen in orgs as well.
I am NOT accusing anyone in iNat staff, leadership, or board of what I just said. I’m just making a note on the discussion of whether those who keep the lights on at iNat should be in communication with those of us who rely on iNat and help make it what it is - which I think is an odd tangent because neither can exist without the other. You can argue that the iNat users and their data make iNat what it is, and may help bring in funding, but we also aren’t gonna have any place for that data without the behind the scenes work.
On: @dlevitis said “We have important insights that would make the platform and organization more successful if communication was improved.” @bazwal said “The second is clearly debatable.”
Even if that second point is debatable, i’d love hear more constantly from staff about matters that are being debated and discussed by those users, especially those who have been highly invested in the initiative. Ideally from multiple voices on staff - not just the two who have typically engaged.
On: bazwal’s earlier “Much of the discussion here often fails to make a clear distinction between the iNaturalist community (which is created and maintained by its users) and the iNaturalist organisation itself.” And their follow-on "We aren’t stakeholders in the iNaturalist organisation. The specific terms of use, and the broader policies and guidelines that influence how people use the service, are entirely separate from "
We end-users can all read those terms. However, even if agreeing legally (etc) that staff are not fixed to obligations, i think that @bazwal is either simply missing or needlessly dismissing how much effort that many here (and beyond) have actually directly contributed to what exists. Are any of us obliged to get responses on such matters? I’d say No. Do we even deserve it? I’m expecting @bazwal might say “That’s clearly debatable”. If that turns out to be the consensus staff response (whenever it comes), then i’m joining @graysquirrel and also taking a break from my efforts.
As for “We aren’t stakeholders”. Well, around forty years ago, the great biologist E.O. Wilson warned the world about extinctions and biodiversity, and highlighted the need to recognise the smaller and often overlooked industrious majority, for example the vital ecosystem services provided by e.g. the pollinators, as “The Little Things That Run the World”. I’m hopeful that E.O. Wilson would have advocated for inclusion of Gray Squirrals and such into those of his conservation concern - some Macrofauna also are fundamental to a healthy ecosystem full of biodiversity!
This tangent in the discussion leads me back to suggesting (again, sorry) an an iNat science and user advisory board. It’s not feasible to have all however many of us chiming in on everything, and I don’t think it’s wise either. But between the advisory board and also just more consistent communication, I feel like that could go a long way.
Somewhere I feel like this discussion ended up in the all or nothing pit…..
Thank you from a fellow non-profit professional for this excellent perspective. Thanks also for taking the time to look at the 990s and explain here why board giving is a must. I wanted to do both of those things but didn’t have the bandwidth.
I believe many coordinators of the iNaturalist global network meet online regularly. The networks represent an important group of globally distributed partners.
The discussions have involved some of the issues raised here, and I’m aware some feedback has been provided to iNat central. It is my understanding there has been little response to that feedback, and growing frustration amongst some partners. And I believe there have been suggestions from iNat central that the regional networks be disbanded and folded back into a single iNat branded interface. I expect there is a financial aspect to that. I am not directly involved and so not certain of the details, but certainly the regional partners should have a significant voice.
This is very concerning to me. It seems to me that having regional networks is a good thing, both to help grow iNat across the world, and to ensure that other parts of the world have a say and not just the US where iNat is based so that iNat is serving all users well.
I agree that regional partners should be significantly involved.
Adding a bit more context here: while there have been lots of conversations with the iNat network about evolving and improving how we all work together, we are not planning to disband the network in any way.
I would like to follow up on this because another curator reached out to me and it further illustrates the need of action from staff in my opinion. I just learned for the first time an example of a curator forgetting to unsuspend a user from what should have been a temporary suspension. Unfortunately I learned it was actually me and I really have no excuse other than I’m human, not perfect, and can make mistakes. When the responsibility to unsuspend someone from a temporary suspension is put on the curator rather than being automated. It opens the possibility of human error. What should have been something like a 3 day suspension ended up being over a month, so who knows if the user is interested in coming back.
Many thanks to fellow curator @karthik_83 for alerting me.
We all must remind ourselves that we’re only human and fallible, and not be too harsh. : )
All platforms must allow for people to make mistakes, learn from them. Of course here we all owe the user a huge apology for goofing up.
As you’ve said, one of the learnings here is that there must be tools that cover for our lapses, so an automated system of unsuspension would be helpful. Until that happens, let’s perhaps clearly mention the duration of suspension under a flag (or elsewhere) so that any other curator can follow up too.