Revealing exact locations of obscured observations (guidelines)

I recently came across a very interesting observation with an intentionally obscured location (the observer even noted this in a comment). Another user, who also happens to be a curator, then commented “Looks like X” where X is a very specific location and likely the correct location for this observation. The location is not easily deducible from the images uploaded and so the comment makes it much easier for anyone viewing the observation to know where it took place.

I have several concerns about comments such as this that reveal or speculate on the true location of an obscured location.

  • Violation of observer’s privacy: Speculating on the specific location infringes on the observer’s right to keep that information private, potentially risking their safety or personal information.
  • Disrespect for the observer’s decision (slightly different to the above reason): Guessing the location undermines the observer’s choice to withhold that information.
  • Impact on user trust: If observers feel their privacy is not respected, they may become reluctant to share future observations or continue to use iNaturalist.
  • Risk of harm to wildlife: If the location pertains to sensitive habitats or endangered species, revealing or guessing the location could lead to potential harm or disturbance to those species.

While the observation I’m referring to was obscured to reduce disturbance in a sensitive environment, I believe these concerns are relevant for any comment revealing a location, regardless of why the location was obscured.

I reached out to the user who made that comment, asking them to consider some of the reasons above and please remove their comment. They responded saying that what they said is not against the guidelines of iNaturalist and, therefore, they will not remove it.

Given that there don’t appear to be specific guidelines on handling this situation, I would greatly appreciate any suggestions on how (or whether) I should continue from here.

16 Likes

Pass the issue on to Help at iNat.
You have valid concerns, and you have already approached the commenter.

6 Likes

I agree that it would be better not to post such comments. However, I also agree that there is nothing in the current guidelines that I am aware of that really discourages/prevents this, so I don’t think any action should be taken currently. It’s a reasonable discussion as to whether or not this situation should be addressed in the guidelines.

4 Likes

Thank you for the suggestion. I would fully support adding a section to the community guidelines that addresses this situation and will mention that in a ticket submitted to staff.

5 Likes

I would disagree - the guidelines are just guidelines, I don’t think putting our hands up in the air and saying “well it wasn’t written down, so I guess we can’t stop you” is a valid excuse. I think the concerns listed about such behaviour in regards to obscured locations are all things that are both common sense and should be implied within the existence of the feature. A curator shrugging in the face of what are pretty clear and obvious reasons because there’s no written power forcing them otherwise, in spite of what common sense dictates, does not feel like adequate behaviour.

I think this plays into what Diana suggested, because my personal assumption would be that help@inaturalist.org would take it more seriously and actionable than leaving it up to the discussion here.

I can’t think of any counterpoints that would make such behaviour okay, I don’t think there’s much to actually discuss in regards to the specifics of the issue - only whether or not this has to be explicitly written down to be enforced correctly.

15 Likes

I don’t think it’s accurate to say that curators are

or

@rion_c literally started this discussion to ask what might be done and appropriate, and they said that they would submit a ticket to staff. They also initiated a personal conversation with the commenter, which was the best starting place in my opinion. All three of these are clear actions.

It’s also unclear what you consider to be

in this situation. The specifics matter.

The only real enforcement mechanisms open to curators in this situation would be hiding the comment or suspending the user, neither of which are supported. These are both serious actions, so iNat has clearly laid out situations in which both of these are warranted which this situation does not currently meet. The criteria for those are laid out in the Curator Guide and Suspendable Offenses:
https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide

7 Likes

If the user has chosen to obscure the location, then deliberately outing them comes across as cyber-bullying.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/26/social-media-posts-endangered-species-capercaillie-birders-aoe

11 Likes

At a minimum, naming the location is disrespectful.

11 Likes

You’re right, it wouldn’t be accurate to say that about curators as a plural, which is why I didn’t. I said “a curator” referring to the curator the commenter mentioned in the original post.

I was only saying that in reference to your response, which seemed to be taking a step back and justifying the curator circumventing the intended use of obscured locations with a lack of exact written ruling.

I agree that all three of the user’s actions were clear and correct.

Your neutral response makes more sense after explaining that there’s very limited power or justification available to deal with these situations on the curator side. I think the offender should at the very least be warned, which I would expect in the case of them being a regular user, and so I would expect more in the case of a user with more ‘power’ on the site.

2 Likes

this seems an obvious violation of trust and good-faith and if this is allowed whereas other things like pseudo-civil arguments aren’t, the guidelines probably need more review

8 Likes

If that was my observation, I’d delete the whole thing. I obscure locations of my observations for very specific reasons, when I choose to obscure those locations. And if someone is choosing to undermine that, then I’m going to do what’s in my power to get rid of it. I will not be diplomatic about it. And if it happens again, then I’d be likely to leave inat altogether.

10 Likes

yes, i’d delete my observation as well. I’m often on private land with landowner’s permission to be there, but not necessarily to share unobscured iNat points. Or it’s a species that is vulnerable to poaching. iNat has been very clear that it’s against the rules to discuss bugs or exploitable issues within the obscuring algorithm itself, so how does ‘observation doxxing’ or revealing of someone’s obscured location not qualify as that?

10 Likes

Did the observer flag the comment which revealed the obscured location?
Then I would screenshot and advise them to delete the obs. As an observer that is our only recourse.

1 Like

To me this sounds more like a specific situation that should be discussed in a flag; I would recommend flagging the comment so curators can discuss the specific situation in detail, because I agree with cthawley that the specifics matter:

In addition to the formal enforcement mechanisms, I think just having curators encourage the user not to post comments like that/giving guidance on what comments are appropriate could be constructive in a case like this.

2 Likes

The observer did not flag the comment.

I have made them aware of the discussion going on here and assured them that this is being looked into more generally.

3 Likes

Just to clarify: the photos used in the observation may be familiar to someone who has been to the exact location, but very few have (or should have). I’m not suggesting that the commenter used anything other than the observation photos to deduce the location, just that it is obscure and revealing that information in a comment on the observation is problematic for many reasons.

Otherwise, I agree with the comparison to ‘doxxing’. Hopefully a review can lead to a tightening of some aspects of the community guidelines.

7 Likes

Thank you for this suggestion. The commenter (who is a curator themselves) has already been encouraged not to post comments like this but perhaps having multiple curators suggest that would be convincing.

It is definitely not a once-off occurrence though since another user on the same observation has essentially done the same thing in agreeing with the first speculative comment. While hopefully rare, I suspect similar comments are seen on other observations every now and again. Therefore, although I agree the specifics are important in determining enforcement, it would also be beneficial to the platform to have clearer rules on what is and isn’t considered appropriate when revealing or speculating on the true location of an obscured location.

[Sorry for the multiple post responses. I am still getting familiar with forum etiquette.]

4 Likes

It seems that they miss the point of protecting vulnerable species. Sad.

2 Likes

Ditto. iNat needs to determine the appropriate reaction to stop this cyber-bullying. There are already enough people who refuse to participate** in iNaturalist due to this exact issue - really do not need to provide reasons for more to boycott.

** although there are undoubtably others, many herpers are quite outspoken on this issue.

4 Likes

definitely a big deal with illegal collecting of herps. illegal collecting is a big problem in the plant community in some specific ways, too.

1 Like