Well, the way everyone seems to want to steer it, it will be shut down, just like the thread that all of the latest responses would have been on topic for.
2 Likes
Yes, that’s what I anticipate will happen.
when you say “this particular topic”, are you referring to this thread, or are you referring to the “male domination” thread, or are you referring to something else?
1 Like
I had to think about that one a little. I think that this one was going okay until this morning because everyone seemed to be sticking to the topic of the survey, what it said, how valid it is, how much it should be relied on, etc. So I think I was really referring mostly to the “male-dominated” thread but then conflating the comments on there with one on here. The funny thing is that before I saw some of the (what I consider) dismissive comments on these two threads, I had not even thought there were gender issues on iNaturalist, and I think that is reflected in my comments on the “male-dominated” thread.
8 Likes
i think “irresponsible” is a strong word. earlier, bouteloua described one of cas4moss’s comments in that other thread as “harmful” because it wasn’t qualified. that’s another strong word.
when one of the female commenters in that other thread talked about how she used the system in a specific way to maximize her personal safety, and then another female commenter expanded upon thay with her own experience, nobody said, “wait a second. that’s just an anecdote.” no, what actually happened is you had people jump straight to policy suggestions based on those 2 comments.
in this thread, bouteloua said:
so again, anecdotes are fine and dandy, but an admittedly imperfect survey provides nothing of interest, nothing conversation-worthy?
i’m not discounting the anecdotes at all. they have their place, and they can provide really valuable insights. similarly, i think if you look at the survey results, you might find some interesting things worth discussion.
5 Likes
I find this interesting – mildly so, because we know it’s not a representative sample of iNaturalist users, but interesting. My take on it is that men and women are about equal in numbers among iNaturalist users who read forums and take surveys, and men have many more observations and identifications, though that might be biased by the few men and fewer women who have enormous numbers of posts and/or identifications. (Might want to re-analyze observation/identification results for medians rather than means to minimize that bias.) Results are not unexpected, not exciting in any good or bad way. It’s nice to feel I know a little bit more about really engaged iNaturalist users. Thanks for doing the survey and reporting results, whatever they may mean.
8 Likes
So do I!
One of the nice thing about getting older is that I’m at so much less risk from the guys out there, but (1) not zero risk and (2) the fear from earlier experiences doesn’t go away.
9 Likes
I believe you have misunderstood what I was saying. Your data on the gender of the person posting or identifying makes no difference to me - I interact with all equally, especially since I have no interest in finding out the personal details of anyone’s life. If you feel there is a problem with gender bias, then iNat should do a proper survey, although I don’t see spcifically what ‘we’ could do about it.
People use this site in a way that suits them. I make few observations, but prefer to identify a subset of Lepidoptera.
1 Like
I have similar concerns with safety as a woman when considering places and times to make observations. There are definitely places I would have liked to explore more but recognized it would not be the wisest to do when alone. I live in NYC, which is in general very safe, but the more isolated parts of some parks that I’d like to get to and spend more time in occasionally have residents and it would be better not to surprise someone by my presence or to be with a companion.
7 Likes
Thanks. It isn’t my data, by the way. Another person conducted this survey. Personally, I wouldn’t ask for a formal survey unless there was some discrete issue about how iNat works that seemed to have more impact on one group than another. Others may feel differently about that.
1 Like
I know what you mean. I am more comfortable if there are others around. The mountain bikers used to seem annoying to me when I used a certain park, but then when they temporarily couldn’t access it for a while and I was all alone, I couldn’t wait until they came back.
6 Likes
I posted that comment after walking a trail in my favorite park that I had been on before but wanted to check out again. (I want to add that I know this park pretty well and have been up and down most of the trails. ) The trail I took is not long nor that isolated as it runs along the edge of a golf course. But on that day, I was stopped by a cyclist who announced he never sees anyone on the trail walking–did I know where I was? I told him I was just trying out the trail and, yes, I knew where I was. Then, he said, “Well, then what road does this connect to?” I answered him. He said, “Where are you parked in relation to the trail?” I answered that too. (I just wanted away from him at that point.) He said he owns one of houses on the perimeter of the park so just rides down his driveway into the park. It was then I realized he felt a proprietary right to the trail, and I think wanted to know who was on the trail. But, I walked away infuriated, humiliated, and wondering if he would have quizzed a man about his location in the woods. So, all this to say, I hear you.
8 Likes
I apologize for assuming the data were yours.
1 Like
No problem!
2 Likes
I just want to elaborate on a couple of things I’ve said on this thread, and give an example.
These were:
and
There doesn’t need to be a bad intention on anyone’s part for there to be a different impact among different groups of people. I’m going to use the matter of the identification etiquette to give an example of feeling it possible that there is a different impact. I am not saying that there really is a different impact, or that I am advocating any change, so I hope this thread does not get derailed in that direction.
So here’s the example:
Some time ago I came across an observation that had one identification, made by the observer, at the level of subspecies. Since there was only one identification, the observation was “Needs ID.” I added a species ID (of the correct species), and the observation became Research Grade. I got an unappreciative response from the observer. At that time I started a discussion of it in a thread on the forum that was already ongoing to see what others thought, and the consensus was that I had violated the identification etiquette by adding a coarser ID. So I removed my ID.
Now there is an ongoing discussion on the forum about an observation where the observer made a genus ID and then someone else added an identification of a different organism in the photo. This was pointed out to the second person, who was asked to remove the ID of the wrong organism. That person has not complied, and has expressed the view that he has the right to make an identification of an organism in the photo that is not the organism that the observer wants identified. (I assume from the user name that that person is male, but admit I could be wrong about that.)
So I found myself thinking, why didn’t I just refuse to follow the identification etiquette before when I had added a correct ID to an observation and thereby made it Research Grade? Why didn’t I just ignore those who were saying that I should withdraw my correct identification of the correct subject in an observation? I think coarser IDs should be allowed, so why didn’t I say it more forcefully or just ignore the consensus view?
Does the fact that I’m female have anything to do with my reticence and the other person’s lack of it? I don’t know. Does it bother me personally very much? Not really, because I don’t care about leaderboards or their numbers. Do I think females post fewer identifications because of any of this? I don’t know. Am I advocating anything here? No–just pointing out that something that appears neutral and is intended to be neutral may or may not be in its impact.
And for me this survey was valuable, even if it’s an informal one, because it made me think about this.
14 Likes
Jerks can be male or female, as can polite people.
Before realizing that by IDing to species removes it from the “Needs ID” pool I would have asked the guy why he had a problem with me giving a courser ID, now I realize I would probably react similarly if someone gave my species level ID a genus level ID and flagged it “No, it’s as good as it can be”.
1 Like
I agree with your statement that “jerks can be male or female, as can polite people.” I didn’t say otherwise. I didn’t discuss that question at all.
I didn’t say anything about any observation that was removed from the “Needs ID” pool, or any observation involving flagging, but maybe you are starting a new topic.
3 Likes
That’s my last post on this topic, and possibly any other on this forum.
Appreciate your contributions and would love you to stay.
10 Likes
Personally, I don’t think you did anything wrong. I add species level IDs to to subspecies (Some examples: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/29614192 https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/29614161). The reason I do this is because some subspecies are invalid or need a DNA analysis (so it can’t be IDed from a picture). (It’s also not good to base subspecies just on location) When I first started identifying, I didn’t ID anything with a subspecies because I didn’t want to get yelled at, but now I’ve decided to ignore anything if it occurs (which it hasn’t yet).
As a side note (because I was too late to the other thread and this survey), I know of 2 instances were it felt like I wasn’t listened to/acknowledged because I was a female and not a biologist, but maybe there are other explanations too.
8 Likes