Done. For those interested in voting for such a feature, it’s here:
2 Likes
Definitely. And perhaps there aren’t a lot of data users who would even care whether the data is correct on iNat. For example, someone publishing a paper based on data downloaded from iNat will probably vet their data offline, make whatever corrections/exclusions they need to make, and call it a day. Few (if any) would take the time to go back to the source observations on iNat and suggest corrections/annotations/etc.
But in my case, our database allows users to see the individual observations, and we link back to the sources (where this is possible). So there’s some incentive for me to ensure that what appears in my database matches with to the source observation I’m linking to. I try to ensure that this is the case, up to a certain point. For example, for certain taxa, an observation that has a species level ID on iNat that is Needs_id may appear in my database with a genus level ID.
As I said, it might be less of a headache if I do 100% of the vetting/correction/annotation outside of iNat, and live with the mismatches between observations in our database and the source observations on iNat. I think that will be a net loss for iNat, but we all do what is necessary to survive.
1 Like
I’m sorry, @rcavasin – I didn’t mean you can’t ignore them. Of course you should prune out of your own data whatever doesn’t fit your needs. I thought someone asked a question about what are considered duplicates here on iNaturalist and I tried to respond to that.
1 Like