I’m glad someone said it. We are already aware of duress users and the problems they cause. Isn’t this a result of the same mindset? What if we compared the quality of observations between CNC users who continue using iNat long after CNC and those who do not?
Count me as a third who agrees that junk by any other name is still junk.
my main issue with this is that it’s discouraging. i understand the frustration, and i personally think it is a fact that low quality observations in bulk do more damage than good. i don’t enjoy the aftermath of events like cnc because it feels like a huge load dumped on people who value the site by people who don’t value the site. however, i think publicly saying that we think all of these are just junk seems against some of the values of the site to me. it is made to be accessible and to encourage people to interact with nature. most of these cnc observations aren’t doing that in a way that seems meaningful or caring, but that’s not to say some of them won’t eventually see the site in a different way, a better way. i know some “power users” have even started using the site through a cnc or through a school assignment. i personally didn’t understand how to use the app to begin with and uploaded a lot of copyright infringement. i had to be told that was wrong and i had to learn how to use the site the right way, and it was done in a very cordial, organized and professional way, but also in a way that let me know i had to comply with those rules. if i was immediately shut down and categorized as junk, i don’t know that i would’ve continued to use the site or app. now i have almost 200k identifications and i want to say ive been able to help people and the site in different ways.
i know most users who do upload the “junk” wont go that route, but some might, and i think established users have somewhat of a responsibility to maintain order and deal with the huge influx of undesirable observations in a way that isn’t discouraging. i think the guidelines actually enable this, but it’s just hard to keep up with. for example, if somebody uploads copyright infringement, warn them that a continuation will result in a suspension. if it continues, they’re suspended and that’s that. that’s fine in theory but not enough curators are doing it, and even i’m guilty of it, because it’s just a lot. i think the most realistic solution is that it just will take time to work through it all, unless many many more curators start doing things like that systematically, but it can be done gradually, without treating new and inexperienced users unfairly or coldly.
INat suffers from the same thing that impacts almost everything else in the world these days: more of it, delivered faster, but not necessarily better. It’s so easy to snap a photo on a phone and fire it off to a website — it takes seconds — but that ease doesn’t promote consideration of what you’re doing and why and whether your photo is worth the time and effort of others who might review it. But I’m sure that’s an out-of-date viewpoint.
Not a mommy, so I am impressed by the fact that little people are closer to the ground, to see the details. I was admiring a picture of a little fish, tiny fins spread across grains of sand. That little! That close! That interested!
We need that for the future of nature (and iNat)
“Many” is a bit vague. What would be the proportion, overall?
This site has the ambitious goal of helping people learn about and connect with the biodiversity around us. It is inevitable that there will be a non-trivial failure rate when engaging with people who don’t fully get it, yet. On the other hand, in a world where so many people are alienated from nature and a fairly alarming list of environmental challenges just keeps growing, mass outreach is pretty much the only way that awareness is going to be developed on a scale that will mean anything.
A data point is a data point. If it can be identified, it’s “fine”. I’m always fighting with someone or another on whether my bug covered by branches or taken from 100 feet away is “evidence” or not, and really, it should come down to the previous point.
On the basis of what I see for my country and relatively to my point of view, they are many though I never tried to make a proportion.
I would not define it a failure. It is, for example, like someone wanted me to learn violin at any costs. I am not talented nor interested so I would only get very bad results. In other cases, yes, users need to be driven to a better use of iNat but many will just quit using it.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.