To optimize their utility, I think the default taxon image should be a clear, full-body (or whatever is useful for ID) camera shot that’s easily visible without clicking the taxon profile. This would help avoid people adding incorrect agreeing IDs. To this end I think making an image the default profile picture should be less easy, maybe requiring curator approval, in order to avoid people making photos which are useless for identification the default. This happened to me recently when someone went through and changed multiple taxon images from the good-quality field-guide shots I had made the defaults to grainy cell-phone shots.
Obviously this is a pretty minor issue, but I appreciate y’alls’ input, if you think this would be helpful or not.
it’s not allways the case at the moment, in my opinion. But perhaps sometimes difficult, when the members of a genus or family are not always visually similar
Perhaps analogous is that I’d prefer to see photos of a leaf rather than distant photos of the entire tree. But for trees it’s normal to show just the leaves as the first images, whereas for insects it’s normal to show the whole organism.
I’ve seen this talked about a few times but have never heard anyone suggest that the profile image and the suggestion image don’t necessarily have to be the same image. I’ve seen it argued both that the profile image should be an aesthetically pleasing full body shot of an individual and that the profile image should be a close up shot of a principally diagnostically important organ on the individual. Both of these arguments make sense to me. When ID’ing, seeing a neat image list of the actually diagnostically important parts of different taxons is extremely useful but it’s important not to forget that, in rather blunt terms, the diagnostically relevant organ isn’t the actual animal itself. One might argue that you could simply click into the profile if you want to see the whole animal but the same argument could be made to the other side of this conversation.
I have seen threads hundreds of messages long discussing this issue but I haven’t seen anyone point out that both sides could easily have what they want. Say for example if the profile image that’s displayed when you’re suggesting an ID or comparing taxons and the profile image that shows up on a personal observations species list could simply be two separate images each accommodating to the different sides’ needs. This completely solves the problem for both sides and just makes the site better and more accessible in my opinion. Someone naturally would actually need to implement this change and I don’t know how the internal INat bureaucracy works but coding wise, from the little coding I do know, this doesn’t seem to be a terribly difficult endeavour.
There were some actual trolls doing this recently. They’ve tweaked the requirements a little to make it less likely to happen again.
I suspect that in most cases, all that is needed to fix this is for someone who notices it to fix it. I’ve done this myself many times, but most people don’t realize you can do it, so it mostly does not get done.
PS I’m not a curator, but since currently anyone can change taxon photos, this really is not a curator-specific discussion.
This would mean a lot of work for curators - I think it is rather a task to be done by users who know how to identify a species. Changes for the worse may happen but then the specialists have to change again.
I don’t know if it would help to allow photo curation only to users who have done identifications (leading, improving) for a taxon.
Perhaps analogous is that I’d prefer to see photos of a leaf rather than distant photos of the entire tree. But for trees it’s normal to show just the leaves as the first images, whereas for insects it’s normal to show the whole organism.
Yeah, it really depends on the organism, but experts can determine what would be most helpful.
@coniver I mostly do snakes on iNat, so what I usually do is set the ‘default’ image to a full-body clearly patterned typical individual, with the second photo being a close-up of the face or certain scales, which will appear with the taxa in suggestions.
@taylorse Thanks, I wasn’t sure if iNat already had guidelines. Yeah, I wasn’t sure if I should include the topic in general or features request or what, but I figured I’d throw it out and see what curators thought.
This would mean a lot of work for curators - I think it is rather a task to be done by users who know how to identify a species. Changes for the worse may happen but then the specialists have to change again.
yeah that’s a good thought. I think it might be helpful if the guidelines actually popped up or something when someone changes the photos.
I agree the details required for a taxon photo varies by the type of organism.
Sometimes, I’ve seen a taxon photo changed from something that (I thought) was good into something that did not clearly represent the taxon. How hard is it to revert to a previous taxon photo?
I also agree it would be nice to get some confirmation that a taxon photo is good before it takes over. If it would be too much to put this on the curators, is there another way to say “I second this”?
It’s doable, but tedious. I once had to try to recreate all the photos after someone deleted them, and it was extremely tedious.
It would be easier if the history page showed thumbnails of the photos, or at least consistently provided a link to them. (Some of the photo numbers link to the photos and some don’t, I have no idea why.) But it can be done.
The slightly easier way is to use the obs number (but you have to find that obs first)
Need to add a picture of the fruit? Pick thru all the pictures from obs that have been annotated as Fruit. Tedious.