Has there been any updated on if this is going to be implemented? I think all current curator applications should be reviewed (I say this because I know at least mine hasn’t and maybe 3-4 more) and then after all users who are curators will have thirty days to re-apply via the new process before getting removed. But maybe only users who haven’t done any curating activities within the last 30 days should have to reapply? I’m curious for a lot of input before I make a separate feature request for this.
1 Like
I am not aware of any updates, but I am not a staff member
I do not know why all curators should have to re-apply, what purpose would this requirement serve? I understand it for people who were made curator prior to the current application process, but I don’t see the point for those who were made curator under the current processes?
I think removing everyone who does not re-apply within 30 days is a bad idea, why would we want to remove someone simply because they had 30 days they did not log in?
6 Likes
Well, only removing them after thirty days if they haven’t responded to the email asking them to re-apply under the current requirement process.
2 Likes
I would revise that to: only users who were made curators prior to the current application process and have never done any curating activities should have to reapply.
5 Likes
that’s what the feature request says
1 Like
Yes, and then removing them if they don’t do anything after thirty days.
I think people who have done nothing, even being curator for years should be removed.
1 Like
are you talking about all curators or only those who never went through the post 2021 application process?
From March 2019 - six years ago - so recent commenters may not realise that zero zero zero does not equal No Curating Was Done.
6 Likes
only those who never went through post 2021 application process
1 Like
What is gained by removing inactive curators? If they aren’t doing anything, then they are having no impact one way or another.
Definitely shouldn’t make ‘powers’ available, without considering who you give the powers to. (Hook a journalist into a discussion about war plans?)
Intended as a reply to
3 Likes
But if they’re inactive, they’re not using their powers. So, what’s the problem? They’re just dead wood.
1 Like
But we can’t actually tell which curators are doing what or who is “inactive” (other than completely no longer using iNat). Only 3 stats are displayed on the People page. There are many more actions a curator can do than what is displayed on that page.
8 Likes
In short, then, the problem is activity not inactivity.
1 Like
A post was split to a new topic: How long to expect a response to curator application?
Once your pre-booking at an all inclusive hotel expired as a “no-show”, can you just walk in anytime to eat the buffet and use their swimming pool?
What’s to be gained by removing? Well besides reducing the numbers with potential to cause ‘havoc and harm’, i’d like to see having a ‘curator badge’ reflects that a user has given some extra value to the functioning of the website. Us volunteers who are active curators are being asked to deal with diverse things, and i’d like to see the responses as valued. If the active team is better defined, we could for example co-ordinate better on who to ask for the strongest experience on various matters. Splitting ‘curators’ and ‘moderators’ can be a good start, but so can a reduction of those “Curators in name only” (P.s., it was DianaStruder who hinted at a US political analogy first!)
Ok, back to topic. I’ve long been in favor of a clean out of the inactive curators. There’s multiple options to treat those who had once done “something” but long been inactive. Even just starting with a message/email as suggested above can be great to bring a few back into active interest. But, i’ve come across some who didn’t even realise they were curators or what curators could do - especially some of those people who were added near the start of things. There’s ways to re-engage those with little active interest, such as ‘taxon advisors’ or such. My expectation though is that discussion here is fruitless - is it like a lottery that one volunteer requested policy issue gets implemented each year?
4 Likes
I was just checking this out of curiosity and was surprised there wasn’t a feature request for this.
Only 47 votes on this one going back to 2019 
Then about this past reply
Well, as of today (Jan 2026) on the “The People of iNaturalist” page, there’s 56 site curators who apparently have never done any of the curational tasks summarised there. And don’t ask me what “taxa curated” means. As far as i remember back, there has always been a similarly large fraction of ‘curators’ listed there where zero curation contribution stated. Many of them i’m confident are active iNat participants and likely contributed in other diverse productive ways. That’s a huge difference however from being “curatorially active” by whatever metric.
0 taxa curated
0 taxon changes added
0 flags resolved
5 Likes
Absolutely ridiculous that since 2019, this simple process couldn’t be implemented. Not only has it been in ‘under-review’ stasis for 6 years now, but feature requests related to this are taken down under the guises of ‘…this is something we do plan to do in the future so it’s not something that needs to be voted on.’.
Please update us on the development timeline for this, as was done with the 2019 retreat reflection thread, or give us solace in knowing it will never come.
note: addressed to staff (devs)
2 Likes