This seems a bit like the “true fan” conversations I see on the sports chats I belong to.Some folks suggesting that other users arent true fans of a particular team for a variety of reasons. I always kind of bristle at those comments for who among us really has the say as to what a true fan is or what a true observation should be, If you offer up a public use app open to everyone, people are going to use it in different ways and bring differing opinions to the table. Some might not agree with how they are using it and some might use it in totally inappropriate ways and be screened out but in general people are going to use this app to suit their needs. I for one, being a general naturalist, who never really tried to take a lot of things down to species level have learned a ton by putting my observations up for public review. I suspect that may be the case also for some of those putting up really basic observations. And dont forget that some of these may be kids - we wouldnt want to discourage young people with an interest just because we dont want simplistic observations cluttering the database
@KitKestrel @blue_celery I have reached out to one middle school science department and they weren’t aware of Seek. Now that they are, they’ll be using it instead of iNat and I won’t have to slog through 20 pages of “Unknowns.” Win win.
Thanks for the feedback, @questagame!
I was under the assumption that feedback wouldn’t get to the uploaders, so knowing that it does, it’s a bit easier to take the time to give it.
Also thanks for chipping in to everyone else. @andrewgillespie, @tonyrebelo, @pitm & @kiwifergus: I am in no way trying to stop users from using the app to record observations of cultivated plants or captive animals, or suggesting that such users are in any way inferior. I realise that my choice of words in the original post I made (‘useless observations’) was not the best. Laudable as iNaturalist’s primary goal is, the app no longer exists in a vacuum, as its data now feeds into third-party aggregator sites and from there onto a multitude of other uses.
I am interested in the best ways to sieve out incorrect information (a cultivated plant marked as a wild record) to prevent it from getting into aggregators such as GBIF and ALA. Data from these sites can potentially feed into community groups and local governments and be used as a basis on which to make land-management decisions. Here in Tasmania, for example, I know that the State Government monitors iNaturalist for records of rare plants and updates the State’s record system (the Natural Values Atlas) accordingly. This system underpins much State-level land-management decision-making. My unfortunate use of the word ‘useless’ relates exclusively to this aspect of observations, as it is what I deal witprofessionally.
Following my original post, I had a discussion with an ALA representative through work, and they have their own issues related to the problem of cultivated records being incorrectly marked as wild, and how easy it it for a record to be marked as ‘research grade’.
Will mention that it isn’t difficult to submit data to ALA as an independent source (not iNat, not QG, not GBIF, just yourself). Having sightings marked as research grade “too easily” and then reaching ALA seems like part of a much larger problem with verification, rather than something iNat and other cit. science sites are introducing.
Most of the errors I see in ALA records are actually not from iNat or other sites, but users who submitted specifically to that site. That iNat has some sort of verification has to be an improvement to begin with.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.