Rename "Research Grade"? (discussion and polls)

Much as I prefer to economize on words, I think “Identified” has to come with the “Community” qualifier. Otherwise, what are people supposed to think when they see just “Identified”? Identified by whom? Just the observer? Are they even accepting Community IDs? Those who have been here a while would know how to find the answers to those questions, but better to save everyone the trouble if we can…

4 Likes

I agree, I think “Community Identified” is probably the best choice. Its main downside is that we would lose the constant reminder that observations can, and do, contribute to research.

I also like “Community Verified”, in which the “community” part tells you how reliable the verification is - it’s as reliable as the community. In other words, pretty good, but not guaranteed free of error.

For whoever wants to see the sliding scale and how many agree/disagree, this is already displayed clearly on the observation pages. But we do need a default point at which to remove items from Needs ID, and at which they are considered reliable enough for GBIF. Until/if an “earned reputation” approach is implemented, the current system seems to work pretty well, with around 2.5% incorrectly identified RG observations. We can make that even better by reviewing RG observations for taxa and places we know well or where ID problems are common.

3 Likes

I agree it’s good to see such reminders as often as possible. As has been pointed out elsewhere, though, any observation can be someone’s “research grade”, depending on their research objectives (I suppose excluding selfies, friendies, non-life observations, etc.). As I understand it, the current “Research Grade” – the combination of “community identified” with additional Data Quality thresholds – is a pretty specific threshold that translates to “GBIF-Ready” (and what else? @tiwane? maybe “Data Partner Ready”?)

If it can be done with minimal new clutter, I would be up for having both things display with observations as/when appropriate (and be independently filterable) – “community identified” and “data partner quality”, or such like.

I could live with that version too, but I’m not seeing what any up-side might be over “community identified.” And the strength of the word “verified” would still make me a little uneasy about what we are trying to convey with the term.

3 Likes

Actually, I LIKE “research grade.” My background is in science, and I’m fully aware that two agreeing IDs on iNaturalist don’t really make it ready for serious research. Anyone wanting to use iNat observations that way needs to do their own vetting, and I’m sure they know that. But this discussion among power users needs to take into account the new or less frequent users, who are encouraged by the pat on the back that “research grade” gives. Before changing the term, you need to get THEIR opinion, which isn’t happening here.

“verified” or “consensus” or whatever have their own problems (especially “verified”). I often refer to an RG observation as having been “seconded,” but I don’t think this is a better term than RG. I say keep it.

13 Likes

I think this is a valid concern but I’m not sure how to remedy it without specifically finding new users then eliciting their feedback. I will say, I don’t quite fit the “power user” or “newbie/casual” labels. I think I occupy a middle, more transitional, category but my opinion is: The encouragement and enjoyment of knowing that one’s observation data is useful to research should not be overlooked…however, I do think there are some good points against the implied finality of the term “research grade.”

Here’s my potential middle ground suggestion: Research Ready this implies it’s potential usefulness but alludes to it being in a state of readiness and thus, in my reading, not quite as final as “grade” perhaps. My opinion isn’t particularly strong (on this topic) but I find the debate intriguing. Hope that’s a useful perspective

6 Likes

“Research Ready” is good too.

1 Like

@mira_l_b @janetwright I think the issue some folks have had with “Research Grade” or “Research Ready” is the implication that observations that can’t meet, or haven’t yet met, that full suite of criteria are “worthless” for research purposes.

For some researchers or research purposes, that may well be true. And for a few observations, that may always be true.

But as has been pointed out, observations still at “Needs ID” or “Casual” grade in the current scheme can already be immensely useful for some kinds of research. And conversely, “Research Grade” as currently defined does not guarantee fitness for research.

So the challenge as I see it is to convey the potential value of (almost) all iNaturalist observations for research (and other!) purposes, while at the same time being more specific and accurate about what we mean by the quality thresholds – or “badges” if you will – that get displayed next to individual observations on the site.

3 Likes

“Research Ready” sounds good to me.

1 Like

But even “a more than 2/3 agreement” really doesn’t mean much. Someone who has no idea what the organism is posts something as “Unknown”. Someone, who may not have any idea what the organism is either, IDs it and then the original person agrees with that and it becomes RG. So, conceivably, two people with no idea what an organism is can create a RG observation.

So, I’m not enthusiastic about the “research grade” terminology, I think it implies too much. And I’m uncertain external users of the information are aware of the lack of stringency for an observation reaching that level.

This may be straying a bit from the topic but I think there should need to be two independent agreements, besides the original observer, for an observation to be considered accurately identified. So, possibly like a product review, a number of badges, stars or iNaturalist logos could be used. One for Genus or Species level by observer, two for observer and 1 independent, 3 for observer and 2 independents, up to five for five or more independent agreements. Because, at the current time, if an observation has reached Research Grade with two ID, I typically don’t bother weighing in (because it’s already Research Grade). But, if there was an incentive to get it to 5 or over independent verifications, that would be more engaging and possibly encourage others to weigh in and really improve the quality of the ID.

4 Likes

There are a number of us that go through and identify or confirm ones that have already reached RG. In my case, it is whenever I have learnt something new about a taxa, or for taxa that I am particularly interested. Identifications in iNaturalist are very much a dynamic thing, and changes/corrections can occur even up to a couple years later, especially as new expertise comes on board.

2 Likes

Quite obviously ‘Research grade’ promises much too much. How about ‘Majority agreed taxon’ or ‘Majority agreed ID’? Everybody knows that the majority isn’t always right.

1 Like

I’ve nearly lost track of all the options and what people think of them, so I’ve added a poll to the initial post. I’ll try to keep it up-to-date if new options are suggested.

4 Likes

Well, after all directions the discussion went in here, I’m a little surprised to see such a strong signal in the early poll results.

Should we discuss renaming “Casual” too? I’m guessing “Doesn’t Need ID” would be the least objectionable. My first though was “Unidentifiable”, but that doesn’t fit for observations of H. sapiens, fossils, or captive/cultivated, and also doesn’t fit for otherwise good observations with inaccurate date or location.

2 Likes

“no ID required”?

I agree with “identified” or “community identified” but think there should still be an asterisk or an explanation on hovering that explains what that means or and has a disclaimer or some phrasing that indicates community identification is not tied to scientifically stringent accuracy.

2 Likes

I’m not sure there’s actually such thing as scientificly stringent accuracy. Where does that start? Field ID by a field tech? Field ID by an expert in said Taxa? A herbarium specimen? Genetic data? Most data used for scientific studies is closer to the start of that gradient than the end.

@charlie however deep you want to go with that…the point is that people do not oversimplify the identification of organisms and inadvertently minimize the role of science/trained professionals by implying a false equivalency.

1 Like

you aren’t the only one who posted similar sentiments so i don’t mean to pick on your specifically… but i just don’t agree with that being an actual issue. in terms of accuracy for plant data in California or Vermont, aside from a few urban areas contaminated by ‘duress user overload’… the so called ‘research grade’ data on iNat appears equivalent in error rate to the normal baseline data most scientific studies and land management agencies use… with the added bonus that there are photos and other info, so as an ecologist i can decide for myself, and if it seems wrong, disagree with the ID. I understand the issue with the term ‘research grade’ and think changing it is a good idea, but also don’t think there’s a need to minimize the value of inat data. But maybe for other taxa or geographic areas it’s of lower quality. I don’t know.

5 Likes

I like the idea that a hover or click could reveal more information about RG/CID/whatever it’s called – something similar to the info for endangered status.

For endangered status:

Crappy mock-up for ID status:

And yes, you can find this in the “About community taxa” pop-up, but that can be way overwhelming for someone who just wants to know what RG means, not the entire algorithm for calculating it or the reasoning behind it.

7 Likes

remember that currently, RG means a whole lot more besides “2/3 identifiers agree”. Also, I very much disagree with the casual obs being labelled “no identification required” or some such. Often they are uploaded because the observer wants an ID.

11 Likes