10 users hitting agree on one observation is time, doing the same on 200 observations is more time, it is very common, maybe not in %, but we have millions of observations on iNat, 10k of opted out-s would be a lot, and with how you see them every day you’re iding something, there’re much more than 10k.
3 Likes
One of my biggest concerns for the situation that prompted my post is incorrect range maps, and those records being used as a reference by other users for rare species. A cascade effect of those wrong IDs “infecting” nearby observations, and the conflict introduced as a result.
4 Likes
I am also very annoyed by this.
But in a recent similar disucssion @fffffffff suggested to use the DQA field and hit “cannot be improved” … the observation will then go to casual and disappear from the range maps as well. That helped me a bit in dealing with those annoying cases.
However, if the observer just checks " can be approved" we are back to zero and one would need to find a like-minded IDer to help with the DQA
Well, those observations for sure take me longer then the normal ones, because it is not that obvious why the observation does not go to RG or change the ID… I usually scroll down to the DQA, as this is the most common problem in those cases… only then it will dawn on me that it is an opting-out-situation. If I decide I want to contact the person to change their ID it would even take longer (I usually do not do this anymore, because there is almost never a reaction to be expected even from still very active members).
The time might not be that huuuuge of a problem, but it is my time and I am annoyed that I spent it on a person the gives a shit about others opinions. I would rather use my time on observatiosn where I indeed can make a difference and where it matters. So it´s a motivational issue and I am annoyed that it is so hidden and one is not able to filter for it. I am also annoyed that by default those observations are in the maps and lists of a place… I just described a possibility to deal with it, but it does not work if the observer doesn´t play along. If someone decides to opt out and rely on their own idea of an ID only, why not make those observations by default not appear in lists and maps… at least until others have confirmed the ID? Why not give the IDers the chance to ignore those more easily?
7 Likes
Imagine there were a toggle letting you select between two options:
Show me the name the observer applied to this observation.
Show me the name the community has applied to this observation.
Now imagine under what circumstances you might pick each option, both with respect to your own observations and with respect to the observations of others.
1 Like
An alternate way of phrasing the “I don’t like it when people opt out of community ID” viewpoint might be:
Show me the name I applied to this observation, not the community ID.
M, no, it’s “show me the community id, not one id out of 10”. When user adds “insecta” and then a whole bunch of experts id a species, they have all the right to see the id changed.
1 Like
I think you’re assuming that the ID made by the largest number of people is the correct ID. What happens when you make the opposite assumption?
That’s you who voiced that viewpoint, so please explain to us why you think people have that in mind when they id observations with opted out community id. I don’t assume anything in this case, I just wrote a real example of how those observations look. From reading what is said by people who are against the option, they write different stuff, not to mention “Show me the name I applied to this observation, not the community ID” is something more likely to be said by observer who opts out the community id, which is not present on such observations and is actually wished to be seen by opponents of an option.
OPTED OUT OF COMMUNITY ID
then identifiers can make a deliberate choice to waste their time on this obs.
Or, Next!
Just tripped over another case. Where a gullible trusted identifier
Left a comment
Tagged in another trusted identifier to help
Second trusted identifier added an ID
(and I fell for it three, added an ID, then deleted it and left a grumble opted out …
Which would / could have been another 3 willing obs taken to Research Grade instead. And there were already 2 IDs on it, so that would have been a 4th obs done.
TLDR If you are an identifier - always check for Opted Out before you do anything!
8 Likes
I have no issue with users who opt out of community ID on a specific observation in response to wrong IDs (though obviously one hopes that this is temporary and that relevant identifiers get brought in to correct the community ID).
However, in the region/taxa where I mostly ID, the vast majority of the time what I encounter are observations that have been provided with an initial, broader ID by prolific observers who have opted out of community ID for everything, and who don’t update their ID in response to refining IDs provided by experts, resulting in there sometimes being 3 or 4 or more IDs by users trying to get that easily IDable honeybee (for example) to be recognized as a honeybee. These are not inactive users. They are in many cases very active users. About half of them will respond if I leave a comment. The other half? Zilch.
I have yet to encounter a single user who has opted out of community ID for everything and promptly either updates their ID or otherwise reacts to a refining ID provided by others.
It isn’t “just a few seconds” of IDers time being wasted. It adds up, particularly if one is reviewing older observations, where a lot of the easy stuff has already been taken care of and what is left are mostly ones that are difficult for one reason or another: suboptimal photos, multiple or high-level disagreements – or “opted out of community ID”.
On observation pages (I only use the ID module for annotating phenology/life stage, not for IDing) the note that a user has opted out of community ID is off to the side, not in the line of sight when looking at pictures or scrolling down to enter an ID. This makes it easy to overlook and adds yet another thing that the IDer has to actively pay attention to.
However convenient this option may seem to the observers who choose it, I don’t find it particularly considerate towards other members of the community. I see IDing as a dialogue with the observer, as an exchange of knowledge. And by opting out as a general principle and not responding to feedback provided by others, the signal these users send is that they are not interested in participating in a dialogue with other users as equals. I find this regrettable, frustrating, and not really in the spirit of a community-centered platform.
I agree with @dianastuder, I would like to see such observations marked more prominently so that IDers can choose from the outset whether they want to spend time on them.
11 Likes
I was kidding, but not anymore…
I think opt-out should NOT use the existing quality_grade URL filter, in order to keep everything unchanged by default. A new opted_out=false in the URL would ignore these observations.
With time, identifiers would learn the URL trick for filtering, and nothing would change for those who don’t mind. This would respect everyone’s free choice. No one should complain.
Update: before iNat provides, or not, such a filter, you can you this one (details below):
¬_in_project=153984
6 Likes
So when you see opted out, you feel disconnected, whereas you are seeking community?
Would it contribute to an increasing sense of connection if the Opt Out function required that the observer post a reason for the Opt Out that might help identifiers understand why they Opt Out?
Maybe like a multiple choice selection of “Opted Out of Community Taxon because…”
(a) disagrees with subsequent ID (and maybe the date this selection was chosen)
(b) wants to research the initial ID without community input
(c) recording observation for my records only (like when there’s no evidence of organism but user wants record for life list)
(d) other _______ (please specify)
Would that additional information contribute to the community feel for you? Does this idea keep with iNat’s mission?
It seems to me that there are a few good reasons for opting out of community ID, like when one is working with species that are often misidentified or newly described taxa. The problems seem to be opting out for large numbers of diverse taxa and/or leaving the “opt out” for extended periods of time.
Two changes might help with the problem. First, make it more difficult to opt out for large numbers of observations at one time. (Require that each observation be marked “opt out” individually.)
Second, make “opt out” expire after one year, unless renewed. Have a message appear at the time of selecting it, stating that it will end. What happens about “opt out” that was selected before the change? Either just figure those opt-outs are grandfathered in as eternal, or send an e-mail or two to every person who has used “opt out” to say that the state will expire in one year unless renewed.
5 Likes
No - it doesn’t matter what their reason is.
I would rather ID for someone who wants an ID.
Unless it is a taxon specialist I respect - then there is no misunderstanding.
4 Likes
I wouldn’t say that I feel disconnected from the community when an observer opts out of community ID and isn’t responsive to suggested IDs. I feel like the observer is “opting out” of participation in the community along with the ID – it’s a bit like attending a party and innocently trying to start a conversation with someone who refuses to say anything. It’s jarring because it upsets how interactions are expected to work and it unilaterally changes the rules and the power balance between the participants.
The instances that I have encountered are none of the situations you mention. They are observations that were uploaded a year or more ago with a fairly broad ID (family level or similar) by users who opt out of community ID for everything, and for which one or more experts in the taxon in question suggested a genus or species ID at least several months ago. (In several cases, when I have commented that I am going to mark the observation as “ID cannot be improved”, the observer has almost immediately changed their ID to reflect the expert’s ID – even though they had not done so in all the months preceding.)
The only motivation that I can discern is that the observer feels a need to maintain control over their observations, perhaps because of bad experiences in the past. I don’t in theory have a problem with this, but given that the observations are being posted on a website where the basic principle is that anyone can suggest an ID, it seems to me that observers who opt out of community ID for everything do indeed have a greater responsibility to monitor their observations and follow up where necessary (i.e., update their IDs/comment why they prefer not to change their ID), out of respect for all the IDers who volunteer their time and expertise to help other people with their observations. Because opting out doesn’t just affect their own observations, it affects the collective activities and data on the website as a whole.
This follow-up doesn’t seem to be happening as a rule, at least in my experience. I realize that it can be hard to keep up with notifications, but if that is the case there are surely other ways to keep tabs on one’s observations. If this is not feasible or the user does not trust the community or want feedback from others about their observations, then it seems to me that they might want to give some thought about their reasons for posting on iNaturalist rather than some other website with a different verification system, or they would also benefit from an option that would allow them to take their observations out of the “needs ID” pool.
2 Likes
But in normal use of an option it’s the opposite and observer wants an id, e.g. here I don’t want it to linger in “life” when local expert confirmed it’s a fungus, but another user thinks for some reason it’s a plant. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/137463040 I want community participation, so I could turn it back again. It’s wrong to say people who opt out don’t want an id.
4 Likes
I opted out of community taxon the other day for the first time. I posted the a witches’ broom on a dead tree for ID, with what I think the parasite is (an organism with only about 50 observations), and I posted the host tree separately. I get it’s a difficult pair and will likely sit as needs ID forever. But the first person who added an ID marked it as a Plant and basically said ‘this is an unidentifiable dead tree’.
I consider this unhelpful in any way and it will only make it harder for anyone who may be interested in the witches’ broom to see the observation and weigh in, so I opted out of the community to ignore their ID.
I do find it annoying when I put effort into IDing someone’s observation when they’ve opted out, but I see the use in being able to opt-out of specific observations.
7 Likes
For few cases like this, you could just ask for help. No need to impact all your observations by opting out.
@jf920 says in his profile:
Feel free to tag me if you need help with an ID or voting out an obviously wrong identification.
I would be glad to do it either, for instance if you need a fungus versus plantae supporting ID.
Instead of opting out all your observations IDs, we “opt out” one undesired ID in one observation.
you can also opt out for just one observation. And opt back in later if you want too.
4 Likes
How to do it? I never saw it.