Hmm, yeah, “Portrait Mode” has a hard time with most plants. :\
2 Likes
OK… I understand.
Surprising Romanian “Beware of the little train!” label, for illustrating this feature.
(I learnt Romanian to better speak with Romanian people in France, that’s why I noticed it).
4 Likes
As long as the modification does not prevent the identification and the whole post is genuinely funny and/or respectful for the organism for me it is ok.
In a forum where I was a mod I was more concerned by some users who were used to post photos of eradicated plants despite it was not necessary to observe the underground part…
The example you gave includes a photo of the original specimen in situ, so it’s hard to see why anyone would be put off by it. Anyone with a well-developed scientific sensibility should be able to look at it objectively, and take it for what it is. If it seems like “clutter” to some people, that is simply a matter of personal taste.
3 Likes
exactly. People have different sentitivities about dealing with nature. So what’s wrong with the idea of giving users the option of opting out? I am not suggesting to delete the content, but to let people filter if out. And if they change their mind they can opt in.
Why should they be forced to accept it instead?
I mean, I have explained it in different ways in my comments above, don’t know how I can express this better. Please read them again!
yep. In a facebook group I have also spotted scaraboidea painted over “artistically” with paint markers. Figure it!
Does the insect suffer? no. Is it artistic? Opinable. Just another way we think wilderness is out there for our fun. Some people (myself included) consider this a put off.
I think iNat should be ready to deal in a structured way with these things, but probably is not a priority. Fair enough…
Opting out of what, exactly? As has already been pointed out, anything genuinely objectionable should be flagged as such. The example you gave is clearly not in that category, and doesn’t need any special treatment.
to help you out
your conclusion is… ehm … yours I guess?
For what it’s worth, in nearly 12 years of using iNat, I’ve only seen a handful of what I would consider artistically altered images.
3 Likes
My conclusion was that the term “altered” is too subjective, which is why I asked you for a more exact definition. I think that people will have widely differing opinions on what they consider it to mean, and I suspect many users might object quite strongly if their observations were flagged as such by other users.
1 Like
well, I guess that in science studies like botany or micology or entomology there must be some definition for alteration. Never seen altered specimen in herbaria or insect collections - someone must have worked that out to date.
I would assume that the cost/benefit ratio of implementing such a change is probably a little high right now.
The difficulty of creating such a feature vs. the problem it would solve do not currently seem to be aligned. Perhaps such a feature might be revisited in the future if iNat is suddenly subjected to an overwhelming flood of “altered” images–although I suppose even then that different solutions would be pursued, i.e. higher bars being set before new members can post.
3 Likes
This conversation is sounding very similar to a recent one:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/is-a-photo-of-entrails-too-offensive-for-inaturalist/5465
A bunch of thoughts and summaries from that post and this:
What some find objectionable is perfectly acceptable, and even wanted, by others.
iNat has guidelines on what is acceptable, and organisms altered or dissected doesn’t breach those.
Are we talking about preventing the observations from existing at all, or just wanting a way to filter them out from your personal experience of iNat?
The easiest form of filter for content that you do not want to see is the “Next” button, or the equivalent of it… just move onto the next observation.
If you are worried about such observations cluttering your data pool etc, you can create a field, maybe called something like “Artistically altered organisms”, make it a boolean (yes/no), and then set that field on any observations you deem to meet that criteria. Then when using your data, you can filter them out.
If the “Potentially distressing content” flag ever gets implemented, and particularly in the form that we discussed in that thread linked above, you could use that flag in the same way, and put a message with the flag indicating “Artistically altered images”, and the users that have set the “warn for potentially distressing images” would see the message and decide for themselves if they want to click the message and show the image.
4 Likes
pressed plants and pin mounted insects are definitely “altered”, usually to make diagnostic features easily visible.
5 Likes
Thanks
My proposal was that the field “Artistically altered” is available to anyone, at picture level, not user specific so that the flagging of a single user is also working for the remaining part of the community who have opted in for exclusion of altered contents (and have not yet run into the pic).
No issues with complaints about this flagging, the pic is not removed and anyone can access it (for instance it could show as a palceholder you can click to view in case you are really curious, as it happens on many platforms for specific contents)
I’d personally subscribe, as -considered as stated above that the percentage of pic affected is low - it would just improve my user experience.
Once you define the Potentially distressing content you might use the same “engine” for this one without doing the workings twice.
Agree that given the current state it might not be high in the list.
The fact is that I appreciate so much iNat in terms of engine and interface that I have high expectations 
.
Up to the team define priorities of course.
1 Like
yeah, I think people got my point. Just align to those standards. No paint, carving, et similia. not that hard to me. Stick to what a professional would do.
Some “artistically” altered specimens do end up in museum collections if the organism is considered unusual or uncommon. Taxidermy mounts, turtle shells made into decorations, armadillo baskets. Of course the location info is always suspect. But I have seen such things cataloged into a museum as specimens.
5 Likes
I disagree… iNat is not about professional or otherwise. It is for all. Professionals can use the data, but the data is not specifically collected for them.
7 Likes
why is this so hard to explain? I am talking of the criteria for identifying altered content.
Then if someone fancy post a picture of a puppy painted for halloween and Inat deems it proper, I don’t mind provided that I can filter it out.
Museums collect natural history specimens as well as anthropology specimens, but yes, sometimes they are applicable to both.
1 Like