Possible Solutions to common State of Matter Life issues?

If you are collecting data or just out observing nature, then take a picture of the bird, take a picture of the plant etc. Otherwise, just take some random landscape shots and go home and see how many things you can find in your photo… not sure that is really observing nature though.

Just my opinion, not trying to change the rules.

1 Like

Regardless of what all is in the photo, it’s a cool photo, period.

3 Likes

I think everyone here has already heard your opinion though and since it’s contrary to the site guidelines anyhow it’s probably better for you to just let it go.

2 Likes

So everyone else’s opinions are okay, mine aren’t - gotctha.

Your opinion was already stated a bunch of times.

3 Likes

I think expressing your opinions is fine, but maybe they should be in a separate thread about how there should be different rules for photo standards, or different requirements about additional photos. The problem is that those are not really the subject of this topic, which is the problem of people changing the subject of the organism when the user has made the subject clear.

4 Likes

Here’s another, still casual nearly 5 years since upload…https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/1675874. So many of these.

3 Likes

I don’t disagree with you. :)
We should respect the observer’s intention, and not post IDs that move things to State of Matter Life just because we think some other organism in the photo makes a better focus.

I was just addressing the “distribution as primary purpose” issue because, like the arguments for ignoring/overriding the observer’s intention (photo quality, posting a wide shot instead of cropping/zooming or doing other edits, etc), I think it forces a level of rigor that is (A) not required by the site’s admins and staff and (B) is likely to drive away casual users.

3 Likes

Like I suggest, adding just the few extra words to the description field above the ID makes it just so much clearer that it’s not an “accidental misclick” ID.

Edit next day: recent example https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/33035700

1 Like

I wasn’t disagreeing at all with you either. I was just trying to point out that by not honoring the observer’s intent people are discouraged instead of encouraged, which is the opposite of the primary purpose you referred to (and that I agree with).

3 Likes

Great example. Four years ago the identifier changed your clear ID, which you immediately commented about, and the identifier still has not changed the ID even though active on the site as of yesterday. Meanwhile, numerous people have spent time and effort trying to get the observation corrected.

3 Likes

Yep, I realized we were saying the same thing using different examples after I posted my reply. :P

3 Likes

You are 100 percent free to request via the feature request section here or even private communication to the site any change you wish to see you inat functionality, rules guidelines etc.

You wish to ban reuse of the same photo in multiple records, or ban photos that are not 5 star quality . Or even restrict participation to people who can prove they own 10,000 worth of camera gear etc, please go ahead and submit such a request

You are not free to create and attempt to enforce your own guidelines on use of the site, especially when they are in clear opposition to stated guidelines on the Site

4 Likes

How is saying she plans to or would flag observations which are 100 percent permitted, even explicitly so in the user guide honouring the site wishes?

I was going by the statement in her other comment which stated that she does honor iNat’s wishes, even though she may disagree with them.

deleted, although I don’t know why

1 Like

Ok, I’m super confused now. I was just trying to clarify what you were referring to in that comment. Not saying you had to delete it or it was offensive

1 Like

Oh sorry. My comment briefly said that but then I removed the delete part because it seemed too harsh. I guess I did it too slowly.

1 Like

This problem of a reviewer IDing the wrong subject seems to come up again and again. Although the submitter provided the initial ID for the organism that is the subject of the photo, I suggest – as I’ve suggested elsewhere on the forum – that if you want to make clear (or make clearer) what the subject is, add some notes under Description (e.g., the subject is the tree, not the hawk) and perhaps reference the URL for the duplicate record where the other organism is the subject.

It doesn’t take that much extra effort and it just might prevent such tangled messes.

Example:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/16177385
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/16177338

3 Likes

This quote is being misattributed to me. I did not say “So everyone else’s opinions are okay, mine aren’t–gotcha.” Would you mind editing that so it doesn’t look like I said that, but simply responded to someone else saying it?