Well stated @sedgequeen.
IMHO, identification of taxa is a secondary function of iNaturalist. The first goal is to get the data documented. We can correct the IDs later. Heck, a lot of the IDs we make today won’t be correct in 20 years anyway due to taxonomic changes.
First I want to state that I am very new to this Forum and to Seek and iNaturalist, so I want to apologize in advance to newbie errors.
Second, I wish that if I post something looking for an ID, and the specimen has already been ID’d up to a certain point; say Kingdom Plantae, that subsequent ID’s by others not be the same; i.e. Kingdom Plantae. I could, theoretically, end up with hundreds of the same level of ID, but nothing really useful in the ultimate ID of an item.
People id at the level they’re sure in, so if they add the same id it means it’s either really is that taxon or it can’t be used further, or ider just does that to not see it again, anyway getting notifications for it can be annoying, but it also can be helpful to get your observation to the start of the “last updated” pile and maybe easier seen to one who knows how to I’d further.
As a person who is near the top of one of the leaderboards, I offer the following:
I have been mostly housebound for the last couple of years, and I do ID’ing as a way to stay on top of my observational skills. But I also regularly take the time to educate the observers on what traits to consider in reaching an ID. I also have my selection criteria set to only show observation that do not yet have a positive ID, although frequently they already do when I open it up
Intellectual property is now real in this internet age. The people who took photos could post them on any internet site without crediting the original person. So in that respect, it is theft. If they like the photos, they can ask the photographer for a copy, then the artist can decide what they may or may not do with them.
I’ll be the first to admit that I have used such stolen images on different sites - not iNat.
Welcome to the Forum!
There is no need to apologise for errors. Everyone makes them, no matter what their experience level might be. Your second issue is a whole other topic!
Welcome to the Forum!
What you describe is actually what iNat should be about. In the Forum, there may be people who value accurate ID’s (I raise my hand to that one) over getting folks out to look at nature. If you start to notice wild things, it may eventually change you outlook.
If you make a suggestion based on your current knowledge level, so what? It may not be an ID added to the observation, but at least you are out there.
For context, I’m mostly an identifier of Canadian Noctuid spp. But that has been my choice - I try to identify any image, even if the optics are not great.
As an addendum, very common species (like weeds) often tend to be overlooked by people who prefer to identify. However, it sounds like you are using iNat in the way it was intended to be used.
When photography is prohibited there’re signs that say it is not allowed, other than that people will always do that, and copyright, well, you know that story with an exhibition of others’ Instagram photos and they were used without asking? Laws are not really working in this sphere, unless you know someone high up there, plus I never met anyone who’d make photos of photos to illegally use them afterwards, I mean, comparing such photos to a car steal, as if they’re gone now, not quite working for me.
Photos, text, research - used without giving credit to the photographer, writer, researcher - is theft of intellectual property. National laws vary in their interpretation. And we have had earlier long threads about that. For someone creative, stealing their work (time is money) is equivalent to stealing a car from a ‘non-creative’.
When you go to a dealership to get a car do you get to drive every car you see home??? It’s the same thing I invite people to a photo exhibit in order to look at my art not to steal it
On the one hand, I agree with what you want – more specific identifications, not just confirmation of high level ID’s. On the other hand, the identifiers are probably doing their best.
My personal rule (which I sometimes break) is that I don’t add an identification above the species level unless it’s an improvement. That’s my rule now – but when I started I enthusiastically put any name I could on observations. We learn.
Who said they’re using it without giving credit? Or using at all? Every exhibition either allows photos or doesn’t, so you have to stick with it, initial post and nothing after mentioned it wasn’t allowed. There’s no “non-creative” people by the way, only those who were stopped by society. Calling people thieves for doing what they’re allowed to do is not the best way to say thank you for visiting and looking at my work. Really it sounds like what @sedgequeen was writing about, people venting about other people doing what they can (and should) do on the website.
Photo of the photo is not a car, so yeah, I can photo each car I see and go with it at home.
If someone wants to download copies of my car for their own use, I’m cool with that, as long as the original car is still there. But photos are different. If someone tried to sell their photo of your photo, that is really no different from pirating a video or software. This is the basic difference between physical property and intellectual property.
If that is their reason, that is one thing. But as soon as they want to distribute those photos, it becomes less straightforward. I remember Birch Aquarium at Scripps – they allow photography for personal use, but disallow commercial photography. And the reason is perfectly understandable: their exhibits cost them a lot of money to maintain, especially their live kelp forest. If someone sells photos of their exhibits, that person is, in fact, making money at Scripps’ expense.
Sure! It’s understandable, but what I read is they just made photos, without intention to sell (I hope so).
I really don’t see why anyoneneeds to know about the motivation of other people
Because actions of others affect you and all the data, one of topics mentioned in original post is binge iding, sometimes it can be a legitimate checking of observations, but sometimes it’s blindly agreeing (proved by wrong ids), with current notification system you can’t mute such ids and if you’re a major observer of one taxon you can wake up to 300 ids done to your RG crow observations, so you can miss notification you’d like to see or accidentally click on something and loose everything, so it’s more of a current system problem other than people actions’ problem (of course if they actually are not trying to win a leaderboard, I know at least one ider who has no clue what they’re iding and they have thousands of ids).
AGAIN - They were not invited to steal artwork they were invited to appreciate it and if they wanted to take it home there was a price tag on it
There’s no “again” in your words, it’s your first time you mention you were selling anything from there, anyway it’s not a steal if that wasn’t mentioned in rules of visiting. You really shouldn’t wait more messages to mention already it wasn’t a regular exhibit, but a sell. Otherwise you can call any picture of something done by other person a steal.
I think mostly we don’t need to know. However, it’s easy to assign motivations to people and then think those motivations are real. I see cases where people get angry or annoyed at people for doing things for poor reasons or not getting enough out of the iNaturalist experience, when actually they have no idea why people are doing what they do. The reasons may be (usually are) benign or ignorant, I think. I’m trying to encourage people to be more tolerant.
