The need could be expressed by the software developer themselves… but their custom solution would be described in the tab… allowing iNat users to provide an entirely inat based solution (if there is one) in the primary thread.
Just as an example…
If I think I have functionality that might address (or partially address) this need, my inclination is to respond to the person with the need. @lewisd562
I’d be responding with good intent but there is a risk that I’m perceived to be hijacking their thread. If there were a Tech Talk category, I could create a thread there for my functionality, but how do I inform the person with the need about the availability of the third party functionality that might address the need?
Instead of “Tech Talk”, you might also consider a “Solutions By” category. This would allow me to talk about multiple components in a single thread. The threads in “Solutions By” should not be limited to three posts in a row because there may be four separate needs in a row where I want to show how my functionality addresses each of those four needs. The person who opened the thread in “Solutions By” shouldn’t be limited to three posts in a row on their own “Solutions By” thread. I suppose to link the need to the solution, the owner of the “Solutions By” thread could simply @ the author of each specific need from each of the four specific solutions. But this might be perceived to be aggressive as well. It’d be better if there were a way to indicate on the need thread that there were solutions linked to it (but not require the author of the need to look at the custom solutions). Offered information they aren’t required to view.
Just chiming in that I would definitely make good use out of a separate ‘Tech Talk’(?) forum.
And with the growth of agentic coding we will likely see a large uptick in relevant hobby posts of this kind. It would be great to have a place to coordinate.
Another example…
This time someone mentioned a project on the forum and I looked at the project. The need is expressed in the only journal post on that project. In this case, I’m somewhat inclined to alert the author of the journal post to the availability of my third party functionality in a comment on their journal post. My intent would be good. I’m not trying to hi-jack their journal post. I believe I have functionality that addresses or partially addresses their expressed need.
However… Maybe it would be better if I could have a “Solutions By” category on the forum. I could describe my third party solution to this need within that new category. Then I could link to that forum post in a comment on their journal post. That way the forum would have some degree of oversight for a solution in response to a need expressed in a journal post (or anywhere else).
If you’re concerned about seeming to hijack a journal post, you could always PM the author of the post to tell them about your tool. I think it would be great to let them know about the tool that might be useful for them. I don’t think any action in the forum would be a good general replacement for messaging/comments on iNat itself, however, as such a small proportion of iNat users are on the Forum.
Thank you for this advice. I think I’ve been overly reluctant to use PMs because they give me the nagging feeling I’m avoiding transparency. Will try to do this more often.
I just added this category: https://forum.inaturalist.org/c/tools-and-apps-using-the-inaturalist-api/36, everyone should be able to see it and add to it. People posting new topics are asked to fill out the topic template. Posts there will not appear in the forum widget on iNaturalist.
I’ll be moving some appropriate topics to the category.
Are people supposed to ask questions about how to use the api in " About the Third-party Tools and Apps using iNat API category"? If the category is only for promoting tools and app, and not for general tech questions, that needs to be more clear.
I think the template should include questions about if the app is open source, and link to open sourced code.
I think the template should include questions about if / how the person used AI in building the tools. Identifications that use computer vision, are marked as using AI. Something similar should also apply to third party tools.
I also think template should ask people how much coding experience they have. Apps that require login can permanently alter/delete user data. I think anyone who is considering using a third party app that require login deserves to know the coding background of the app builder in order to make informed decision about whether or not to use the app.