And when a new user makes a correct ID and then it is turned into State of Matter Life it can be confusing and frustrating enough that the user just quits iNat. I’ve seen comments from new users expressing this confusion and frustration.
9 Likes
as much as i tend to get embroiled in this topic, i think in this case it’s irrelevant because for both of these purposes, creating a copied observation for this plant was very much appropriate.
Just to clarify, when I chose the example it was not because the photo was duplicated. Most of the time when a user posts with an ID for an organism clearly in the photo or a comment in the description clearly stating the subject of the photo, I don’t think there is a duplicate photo. But the user’s intention as to the subject organism should still be honored. Unless the staff is considering changing that, I am still hoping that something can be implemented to stop or slow down this problem of identifiers wrongly changing the subject of the organism.
And I really had assumed that most identifiers unnecessarily throwing these observations into State of Matter Life were doing so inadvertently, rather than intentionally.
6 Likes
The photographer may want to know the host for the bug. An entirely reasonable thought, and one that may only have occurred once the photographer was home and looking at the picture. Of course, taking additional photos of the plant without the bug would have helped, but things happen in the field.
7 Likes
I enjoy entering one photo multiple times if it contains multiple species. It may confuse AI, but still, it’s fun. This observation of mine (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/32247813) is duplicated for American Bullfrog, Wolffia borealis, and Lemna minor. Perhaps fortunately for iNaturalist, I didn’t initially realize there’s a Spirodela polyrhiza at the frog’s water line.
4 Likes
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
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.