State of matter Life limbo

While we are on the subject of odd things that can happen, I would also point out the the following scenario can also occur, with bad consequences, and maybe you can answer an associated question.

There currently doesn’t seem to be anything to stop an uploader swapping the photo on an obs, after someone else has already IDed it based on the original photo! In theory, this could be used to try to discredit the identifier!

My question is based on something that I have noticed on Twitter. Sometimes I change the order of photos on my observations for various reasons. If I then tweet the obs url, the photo that shows on Twitter is often (always?) the original photo 1, rather than the current photo 1. This suggests that something is keeping track of previous versions, and I wondered if deleted photos are actually saved still?

here is an example: https://twitter.com/stho002/status/1122622198219304961
if you click on the image it will link you to the obs, which has a different photo 1, and I changed the order before tweeting (I’m pretty sure I did, anyway!)

I encountered this sort of thing with Lincoln observations… photo of plant, ID’d as plant, later the microscope pollinator photo gets substituted… ta da… ID mistmatch… wasn’t deliberately meant to happen that way, was more of a misunderstanding of how the “project” was supposed to work… but does illustrate that it can happen. I have been loathe to raise it in the forums though for fear of putting the idea in others minds… maybe we delete our posts and raise it directly with staff?

While I was looking at some observation the choice of the primary suggested ID had nothing to do with image. My first thought was that an ambiguous image led to a computer generated suggestion that was off base and the primary did not review the suggestion but still chose it - possibly due to web connectivity, vision, language, maturity, novice level, etc.

Another curiosity I had while reviewing was: Are Domains used ie. Eukarya, Bacteria, Archaea ?
Possibly one more hurdle before something gets labelled Life and becomes obscur to many. Something ID’d as K.Plant by one and K.Animal by another would still be a Eukarya

1 Like

Not Plant vs Animal but still case in point:

I think a draft mode would really help, because in many cases one organism in the photo is chosen by an identifier right after the observation is uploaded, and then the observer adds an ID for an organism that is also in the photo but in another kingdom. The observer’s delay just a bit in adding an ID unnecessarily sends the observation to State of Matter Life. Here’s a Feature Request for a draft mode: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/draft-mode-for-uploaded-observations-i-e-option-to-delay-posting/2538

That discussion explains some of the reasons for observations ending up in that rank that I had not considered. A draft mode would seem to resolve that.

1 Like

in the end i am skeptical there is any real reason to parse out eukaryots.

This is very helpful–together with the ability to sort by “last updated” it makes it so much easier to get to the ones that may not be too late to save. Thanks!

I think some of it may be a lack of awareness, some of it is the problem of the observer uploading not being the first to identify and the first identifier not following the observation, and in my opinion some of it is just arrogance–so that it appears to mean “I don’t agree with your species identification of insect so I’ll just ID the plant to get rid of it” or “I see you want the plant ID’d, but the gall or rust or virus is so much more interesting to me so I’ll just ID that instead.” (Sometimes in the latter type I have seen three competing kingdoms.)

1 Like

In part, I have done just this but more not recognizing the desire of the 1° observer and following a suggested ID that seemed very interesting such as an Invertebrate iridescent virus 31 (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/528141) - research and coolness overwhelmed etiquette.

So perhaps with etiquette considered, before changing Phylum or Kingdoms one could try to contact the 1° observer regarding the desired change because once things go in that direction it can take a few suggested IDs to bring the observation back to the 1°’s desired outcome. Is this reasonable?

1 Like

When I encounter a situation like this (after confirming the observer’s intended ID if I can), I usually message the observer about how totally cool and significant this other organism is that was included in their photo(s), and ask if they would be willing to create a duplicate observation for that other organism, and then tag me so I can come back and identify it for them. (If they seem new, I might include the steps for creating a duplicate.)

Bottom line, no need to tussle over which organism to identify in a single observation, just encourage the user to use the same image (or crop thereof) in another observation.

6 Likes

Here’s an example of a totally cool other organism in an observation: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/13381471

2 Likes

The observer is still active, but the duplicate wasn’t made. Maybe more explanation is needed there on how to do it and why?

1 Like

I found this in State of Matter Life https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/24571960#activity_comment_2869974

maybe if the Kingdom symbols were in color people would notice their mistakes more? the shape is key, of course, but color just to catch the attention more?

1 Like

Yes, if I was the observer and just saw the existing comment, not sure I would know what to focus on for the duplicate observation. I see the flying insect on the leaf, but where is the death fungus? If you can give them some further guidance on what would be helpful to focus on in a duplicate, maybe that will elicit a response?

You also have to consider the possibility the user may simply not want to do it, or is only interested in plants etc.

For example, I got this on one of mine yesterday : https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/24696326

I may choose to enter it, but am under no obligation to do so because I was asked to or it is suggested.

1 Like

Yes, quite so, one would not want to seem to be “harassing” if the observer is being reticent.

In being helpful, you might also want to take into account the user’s knowledge and skill set of the iNaturalist platform. This user joined: Apr 23, 2018 and has only 15 observations.

1 Like

This could also happen when someone adds an ID to one of those observations that has multiple photos, all with different organisms, thinking only about the first photo, and then when the user separates them into different observations the one photo the identifier was referring to isn’t the one left in the original multi-photo observation.

I do think this is happening in conjunction with auto-spell. Yesterday and today I’ve been noticing that these bizarre choices in the State of Matter Life category sometimes start with the same first 4 or 5 letters as the correct ID.

This was brought up in the iNaturalist google group somewhere (but I couldn’t find the thread) and one suggestion I remember was that identifiers get notice if the photos changed. I’m not sure I’d want that personally, but just saying in case you want to try to find that discussion.