I sometimes upload some observations to inat, and then I check their page to see how common they are, their range and other stuff. Sometimes I see the photos posted there are heavily pixelated, blurry or noisy. If i have good photos I change them with mine or other times I find better ones on inat and use them. Is this an ok behaviour on the platform?
6 Likes
Sometimes when I edit some moths that have a dozen or less photos, I forget to edit them when I find more observations with better quality. Also occasionally there will only be a bad photo of a specific pose for them like top down or a side view which helps for identification. I’ve also done what you’ve described a lot, it is generally okay as long as you don’t edit them to the point that if someone were to look at the photos, they would see only one view or you specifically choose your own photos.
2 Likes
Not on anyone observation, on the taxon page
5 Likes
Yes, you are allowed to edit the taxon photos. Everything below is my opinion.
People get used what the thumbnail (1st photo) looks like and don’t like that to change. Don’t change the thumbnail unless:
- It is very bad quality photo (focus, resolution, noise, white balance)
- When shrunken to thumbnail size, you can’t make out the organism
- Part of the organism is cut off by square crop
- It is the exact same photo as the thumbnail for a higher or lower taxon
Unless a taxon photo mistakenly shows the wrong species, don’t delete photos (even bad quality ones) until the max number of photos (12) has been met. Instead you can rearrange so they are not in the top 5.
Don’t delete a bad quality photo if it shows a certain feature that none of the others do (for example the seeds of a plant) unless you are replacing it with a better quality of the same thing.
Don’t delete and replace perfectly good photos just because you want to have your own photos up there.
Try to avoid photos that have more than one species in the photo except in the case where two similar species are purposefully shown side by side with the species each labeled in the photo (text on the image).
Don’t include photos of dead vertebrates if they are bleeding, bloated, decaying, partially eaten, or mangled. Clean bones are fine. Only use taxidermy or study skins if no photos of living organisms are available.
21 Likes
I agree with all these and would add that for organisms that go through metamorphosis, try to be consistent with which life stage is shown in the thumbnail photo. For example, butterflies always show the adult butterfly in the thumbnail, and the caterpillar in the other taxon photos. Adding a caterpillar photo as the thumbnail would create inconsistency, and butterfly-specialist iNatters have developed the convention of putting the adult first.
12 Likes
Good point. Also for gall forming insects showing the gall in the thumbnail rather than a cut out larva/pupa or an emerged adult. Except for gall forming moths.
For plants there is no convention like this. Choice of flower, fruit, or leaf for the thumbnail is a case by case basis. And sometimes we end up disagreeing on which one is best for the thumbnail.
6 Likes
And if reordering taxon photos - make sure the first 5 each show a useful and different field mark.
10 Likes
Showing multiple color variations in the top 5 is also helpful
2 Likes
Yeah, with moths there’s definitely some back-and-forth about what to show. In particular, there are species where the adult moths are inseparable, but the caterpillars are commonly encountered and more easily identified. So sometimes the caterpillars get “top billing” in the taxon photo.
8 Likes
Yes, photos should be edited, and the selected photos should show male, female, juvenile, egg, underside, bird in flight, flower, seed, fruit, leaves, bark etc.
I wish more iNatters would go and edit photos
4 Likes
From iNat’s Help page (https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/articles/151000184018-what-guidelines-should-i-follow-when-choosing-taxon-photos-)
What guidelines should I follow when choosing taxon photos?
As described here, most users (aside from relatively new accounts and/or accounts with few verifiable observations) can edit taxon photos. Taxon photos are the first images people see when they research a taxon, so photos that are helpful for identification should be prioritized. Here are some guidelines for choosing appropriate taxon photos:
The default (first) photo should be clear and legible even at small sizes because it’s shown in reduced size on observation pages, lists, in the mobile app, and elsewhere.
Photos should be clear and show diagnostic features of the taxon.
Photos should show as much morphological and phenological variety required for identification (e.g. life stage, sexual dimorphism, plant phenology) in as few photos as possible.
Blurry or unclear photos are better than no photos at all. If the only available photos are not clear, it’s fine to use them.
Focus on the most common morphs and variants rather than unusual ones.
If possible, choose images with a Creative Commons license over those that are all rights reserved.
As of February 15th, 2023, changes to taxon photos are now recorded publicly on the taxon’s history page. If there are repeated changes, please flag the taxon and tag the users involved in the changes to have a discussion. Staff may lock a taxon’s photos in the event of an unresolved edit war.
9 Likes
For a long time the thumbnail for Juncus amabilis was a photo of the inflorescence of Juncus sarophorus, I ended up driving out to the recorded location to find the plant and record it in order to prove that before removing that image
That image was made the taxon icon when there were only 2 or 3 observations but there are a fair few more now
8 Likes
I have mostly only edited taxon photos to add more when there were very few and I thought having additional photos would aid identification, and I personally haven’t felt comfortable editing the first photo, in general.
But I often do wish people paid more attention to the crop in choosing which photo displays first. So many birds have beaks and tails cut off in their thumbnails on the web. The current Castor canadensis (American beaver) thumbnail has both the nose and much of the tail cut off on the cropped website thumbnail, which is kind of a big deal for that species because the most common misidentifications like nutria and muskrat are most easily distinguished by nose and tail. Ideally the photo should also look good in the app thumbnails as well (I sure wish the crop was the same [square] on both the app and website). Seeing the flags on the taxon, the ideal beaver taxon photo has come under scrutiny before.
7 Likes
JMO, but also with moth photos, if you can crop them to 1x1 dimensions you will get the entire moth in the thumbnail. Most people do a landscape orientation that results in the wing tips being cut off in the thumbnail. The wing tips are so important in identifying many species.
4 Likes
With the caveat that these should be common color variations, or at least common enough to be useful in making an identification.
For example, the first 5 photos should show red and gray Eastern Screech Owls (really the first 2). But, a yellow Northern Cardinal is far too rare for it to be useful as a taxon photo. (If you have a photo of a yellow Northern Cardinal, you don’t need to use the taxon photos to figure out what it is. People who know what it is will find you.)
4 Likes
I thought variations had the connotation of the range of things commonly seen. I’d call a yellow cardinal an aberrant rather than a variety. Thanks for clearing that up for other people though.
1 Like
Often I modify the preview image if it only shows a single flower, as this is mostly not very helpful… especially in the case of the DYC (damned yellow compositae or damned yellow crucifer ;-) ). Often, several more similar photos appear on the species page, again only showing flowers. From the pool of photos with research quality I then choose five with a good quality. “My” preview image then shows a slightly larger view of the plant, where some characteristics are already recognizable. This is followed by a photo of the plant’s habit, a photo of a typical leaf, then a single flower, ideally from a slight side view, and finally a ripe fruit. If necessary, I also add a few more supplementary photos of variations or views of the leaves and flowers.
Who took the photos is irrelevant to me; what’s important is that as many identification-critical features as possible are visible.
I think all users that are choose photos for the species page should briefly consider what they themselves would like to see as the first photo for an identification.
4 Likes
So it’s ok to show dead or decaying non vertebrates?
A lot of times they just dry up and you only see the hard parts or for something like a worm, the dried up organism is useless for identifying. Imagine an insect missing legs, then imagine a deer missing legs. Also there is an “if” statement to go with the vertebrates. Say you caught a fish and put it on ice and it suffocated, a photo of that dead fish would not meet any of the conditions in the “if” statement unless it was something pulled up quickly from very deep water. Anyway, as stated those are all my opinions. Someone might disagree with me and think that dead fish was inappropriate or think that roadkill was okay because those photos represented a common sight of that species.
1 Like
I think people should come into this with the understanding that nature is frequently gruesome or unpleasant. It’s part of the package. What if there is a record of a rare rodent species in a new location where it has not been recorded before, but its been decapitated by some predator. This is a new record of a rare species in a new location, valuable info. What then?