We’re planning on adding a few more values to Evidence of Presence soon, as well as a new annotation that I think will be very useful. Because things often get delayed I won’t say any more details at the moment. I’m not trying to be coy, I just don’t like announcing something and there being long delays, which I’ve done a few times.
On the topic of plant annotations, the reason there hasn’t been much movement there is that we’ve been working with an organization to come up with a set of plant annotations that are aligned with existing ones, and getting advice for how specific or not they should be. And like many collaborations between organizations there are the standard setbacks and times where we have to focus on other things. We’re still working towards those, though.
That doesn’t concern me - scientists are responsible for the quality of the data they choose to use.
I am concerned about new iNatters who may abandon those ‘gender police at iNat’. I don’t know of any people affected - but they are likely to come and look around, then quietly withdraw to a more friendly space. It is such an awful first impression to make - yes, so, you are observing nature BUT are you man, woman or other?? What does that have to do with observing nature.
Jason’s idea would help - since you are reworking annotations.
apologies - that obs has been deleted. Now I have even less chance of trying to explain to a newbie.
ID and DQA work on consensus.
But for Annotations the first one wins and we can only add a disagreeing ‘emoji’.
If Annotations worked on consensus it would help us to resolve other issues too
Yes - we know that - but new iNatters don’t necessarily have enough botany to know that there can be separate male and female plants. And that is difficult to explain when they just want to know what it is. Bring me an example - of male and female plants - which can be recognised and understood by ‘anybody anywhere’
Remember - they are still sorting out - Is it Wild? Is it even alive?
It’s like offering an annotation for egg or larva for a palm tree (seedling is a larva).
Or flower or fruit for a fish (little fishie is a fruit).
It. Does. Not. Apply.
To my recollection we’ve never received a complaint from someone interpreting it in this manner. Doesn’t mean it’s never happened, but there’s no evidence that it’s a consistent problem.
You can downvote it, which would make it so the observation is no longer indexed as having that annotation value. Calling it an “emoji” is inaccurate and incorrectly dismissive.
But for countries with LGBTQIA+ issues - you will not get a formal complaint, because they will be wary of authorities picking that up. They will silently retreat. Delete delete delete. And we will never know that iNat made their difficult life even more so. For the few who are affected can we ‘be kinder’ in future? Women versus Taliban or Iranian ‘morality’ police?
Most iNat profiles are ‘cannot be determined’. Yesterday I was talking to a ‘smoking caterpillar’. (On the internet nobody knows you are a dog - and we have them too!) Observer’s gender is neutral and irrelevant - it is unfair to trick newbies. Needs to be somewhere in your new help. Please?
Somewhere is an older forum post - observer doesn’t want the LGBTQIA+ project displayed on their profile - as an example of where issues might be, or have been.
PS why is the Sex annotation the default for all Unknowns? Maybe that is why observers get confused. It is on the landing / splash screen.
If iNat at least waited for Kingdom Animalia ID.
It doesn’t apply to other kingdoms like fungi, bacteria or algae either?
If you are a no plants thanks, taxon specialist you won’t see ‘my problem’.
I spend most of my iNat time IDing Unkowns. From today. For Africa.
I would like to encourage newbies to stick around, come back, explore another slice of biodiversity or a broader or other location. Currently looks as if they are preparing for CNC by learning to iNat first.
If they ask questions, I can try my best to answer.
If I see they have an issue they don’t recognise, because they are new, I can, try to help.
I know that the Forums have lost members over similar issues, except that it wasn’t always a silent retreat. We need to be careful to avoid mansplaining, whitesplaining, straightsplaining, and cisplaining. These forms of insensitivity do not need to be conscious to be harmful.
When I add something like a wasp’s hive, bird’s nest or beaver’s den to iNat, there really isn’t any annotation under “Evidence of Presence” that is appropriate (I usually leave it blank). Is one of the existing options being used in these cases, or does anyone think it should be a new drop-down choice?
This is talked about extensively in the Let’s Talk Annotations thread. Recently, staff announced plans to add more values to “Evidence of Presence” soon (see this post).
If it hasn’t been mentioned already, an annotation for “caste” among social insects (queen, worker, drone, soldier, etc.) would also be useful, if that’s not creating too many fields to work with.
On the website, if you hover the cursor over the annotations, you will read additional information. There it is stated that tracks should indeed only be used for footprints
