I don’t know if it’s that big of a deal but ive seen alot of observations with multiple organisms in them (two roe deer for example), if i have a photo with multiple species in it I tend to duplicate the image twice (with one photo cropped around the animal) then copy the observation for however many animals were in the photo. I’ve told a few people to do the same. I was wondering if what i’m doing is a waste of time or genuinly helpful?
For me, multiple organisms of the same species (two roe deer) = one observation of that species. I’d suggest that these stay in the same observation. But where there are multiple species in shot (one roe, one muntjac) I’d ask the observer please to specify which is the subject of the observation. Finally, if different species have been included across multiple photos (photo of roe deer, photo of squirrel, photo of bluebell), I ask please to split into different observations - and these days tick the DQA box for multiple species.
14 Likes
Generally a waste of time. If there are multiple species in the photo and the uploader suggested a species, you generally know which one they’re going for. If they take a picture at a feeder with both a blue jay and a chickadee and mark it chickadee, there’s no need to omit the blue jay. It’s only if they didn’t mark the species or it doesn’t make sense, like the above situation was marked bald eagle, that asking will clarify anything. If it’s the same species in the same picture then they’re only missing out on making a second observation, which they might not have wanted to make, or that just makes the annotations unclear. If the annotations are important, go ahead and ask, but generally just go with what’s center frame. If the center is a mother duck and there are ducklings in the picture, mark the annotation as adult female and put ducklings in the observation field.
7 Likes
Sorry - deleted this comment because I didn’t read the initial comment properly.
I must be feeling nihilistic or something this evening, because I read this sentence and felt some part of my brain go, “Is anything ever genuinely helpful?”
6 Likes
I don’t think there is any problem with have multiple individuals of a species in an observation. I think this is actually better than having multiple obs of species from the same date and the same location. That approach might risk cluttering up the distribution maps derived from iNat observations. No problem have different obs for different species in the same photo. In the example below I lodged 3 observations for the same photo showing 3 different fish species in an Asian wet market. The numbers I sketched in are to indicate which species each observation relates to.
I typically only duplicate observations if there are multiple species in the same photo
5 Likes
A large percentage of observations will have multiple organisms in them – i.e., just about any photo of an animal in a vegetated landscape will have plants in addition to the animal.
Users are not required to duplicate an observation to record every organism in the photo. They may have good reason for choosing not to (not identifiable, already uploaded in another observation specifically for that species, it is not a wild plant, etc.).
If there is something else interesting in a photo that I overlooked or didn’t realize was unusual, I am grateful if IDers point this out to me. I think it is OK to point out to new users that they can (not should) duplicate the observation if they want an ID for the other organism as well. Otherwise, as an experienced used, I would be annoyed if someone told me to (= instructed me to) duplicate my observation.
IDers are sometimes annoyed by the practice you describe of duplicating an observation to record every single individual organism in the photo. Two roe deer may not seem like a big deal, but what about a flock of 20 birds of the same species? Would you enjoy identifying the same photo 20 times? What about if someone takes a photo of a meadow and duplicates the uncropped photo to create a new observation for every single plant that can be recognized in it, even if it is just two leaves in the corner of the image? Many of us find it frustrating to play “where’s Waldo” and may choose to refrain from IDing such observations.
7 Likes
Having multiple species in a picture is, I think, pretty common. Lots of my pictures, especially pictures of fish, have multiple species including other fish, corals, etc. When entering observations, I look at the picture and the species I’m trying to identify and either crop around it or highlight it with an arrow. That way, there’s no confusion, especially if the specimen I’m trying to identify is not the most obvious thing in the picture. I am regularly surprised at what I spot in the background and didn’t even notice when I took the shot.
All that said, I don’t know if it helps others. I just think it’s useful to ensure we’re all focusing on the same target.
2 Likes
I had this issue yesterday, two species in one photo, like you said I made one entry for each species
2 Likes
Technically, iNaturalist allows us to post the same photo multiple times, once per individual. As an identifier, though, I say, “Please don’t. Don’t waste my time.” There are certainly times when posting the same photo multiple times is a very good idea! I’ve even recommended it. That depends, though. Scenarios:
- Two or more species show up well in the photo. Go ahead! Post this two or more times! You can simply duplicate the observation or you can crop the photo differently for the 2 (or more) species or you can circle the species of interest in each observation. I’m happy with this and I suspect other identifiers are, too. (Make it clear which species you want ID’d in each copy, perhaps by putting an ID on it yourself.)
- One species shows up well but multiple species are present. Please don’t make us search through the photo for a small plant located 3/4 of the way to the margin at 4:00. Either post this once, for the species that’s shown well, or crop it for each species of interest. (Sometimes posting the poorly shown organism is necessary because you didn’t see it in the field, only in the photo. However, I’ve seen photos where I want to scream across the internet, “You could have walked a little closer and taken 8 good pictures, rather than just the one forest photo you’re posting 8 times!”)
- Photo shows 9 individuals of species A. Please post this only once, or perhaps post it 2 or 3 times so you can annotate the different observations for male and female, adult and juvenile. Please do not post this 9 times, once per individual. iNaturalist allows you to post it 9 times, of course. Doing so is consistent with their policy that each observation is the interaction of you with one individual organism. But identifying all these identical photos for the same species feels like a waste of my time and annoys me. (It’s possible, of course, that keeping me happy is not your highest priority – though how could that be true?)
16 Likes
I tend to do what you don’t like, it irritates me if I uploaded a photo with multiple lets say boar in it. I have to separate as I feel as though it more accurately gives an idea of the populationv- one of the main things inaturalist is used for is monitoring populations and ranges (from the times ive seen it used me scientists) thus having all 6 of the boar in a photo as a single observation seems inaccurate.
That is probably better captured with a “Number of individuals” observation field.
8 Likes
One problem I come across form time to time is that people THINK it is the same species when it is not or it is not so clear.
Another one is where you have multiple organisms or the (probably/assumed) same species in different life stages, where an IDer might know how to ID one but not the other.
In these cases I very much wish they were separate observations.
3 Likes
For me it depends of what im trying to capture in my observation. If I see a grouping of plants or animals and im looking to document more than just an individual then my primary observation focuses on the context of all the individuals. If I have the time and ability to then take specific photos and notes of individuals then each gets its own entry. I would be sure to link and reference each relating individual and the group observation. My decision to make multiple entries also depends of the amount of quality photos i can get and if I notice any characteristic traits or behaviors.
This is all considering im looking at the same species. @richyfourtytwo makes a good point.
“interaction of you with one individual organism”
In my view, this is a very poor definition of an observation. It is unrealistic and it leads to questions like, “Should the two roe deer be separate observations?”
There are thousands of species of animals (and plants) that do not live singly. They are observed in pairs, herds, flocks, schools, colonies, clumps and other sorts of aggregations. When I see barnacles, I am not interacting with one specific, individual out of the dozens or hundreds on a rock. To be sure, it is possible to crop a photo to show just one barnacle, but that misrepresents the way the animal was actually living. Inevitably, there may be other species visible in the photo. Sometimes they might be worth a separate observation and sometimes they’re just background clutter.
3 Likes
iNat data is useful for range information.
However, it is only of very limited use for estimating abundance (i.e., populations). If you are seeing scientists use iNaturalist observations to measure population, you need to take a very careful look at their methodology.
Data about populations would normally require that observers are following some kind of systematic protocol – for example, counting how many individuals they see at a certain place at a certain time over a certain number of minutes. As a general rule, they are not. They are observing whatever happens to catch their interest. They may document one individual of a species, or several, or none at all. They may visit the same site repeatedly or different sites each time. Someone else may document the same individual – their record still counts even though that individual was already documented. A user in location A may be interested in different species than a second user in location B just a few km away, thus making it appear that the first user’s favorite species is more common in location A than in location B. These are just a few examples.
13 Likes
I can live with it. Have fun!
2 Likes
I really like observations that include information about how an organism relates to others and its environment. So I encourage (with interns), a good photo or photos of an individual for ID shown first, a good photo or photos of surroundings giving information on environment, conditions, etc., and photos showing any group this species is part of. All this I think enriches understanding and may be helful in research. Generally, putting the targeet organism first is enough, but adding an arrow or note can clarify. Thanks for reading!
3 Likes
The only time i’ve been tempted to duplicate an obs for a picture with multiple of the same species is when i take a picture of mating animals, because i want to contribute to the annotations about their sexes. it used to frustrate me that there wasn’t a “mating” annotation but i understand it’s because inat wants obs to be of a single individual; i’m wondering if observation fields might be a better way to record observations like that instead of duplication. i think it’d be extremely useful to search a species and be able to look at all the observations of those animals mating for a clear picture of their sexual dimorphism or lack thereof
1 Like