Tags can only be added by the owner of the observation.
Records can only be added to old style projects if the user has enabled it in their account settings.
All users can add an observation field to any record, but the challenge here is there is so much overlap and duplication of observation fields that getting any standardization of use of a particular one is effectively impossible.
Comments can be searched, however placeholders can not.
I was thinking of using tags added by identifiers or ID comments as a way of filtering for things such as marine organisms or āseaweedyā type organisms.
My thought now is that it might be a little futile because in order for it to be helpful, a select group only would likely be adding those common grouping and/or polyphyletic tags and comments ā¦ and ā¦ a likely even smaller group of such inclined users would be filtering for those tags and/or comments.
tags definitely not, fields maybe but with all the problems you citeā¦
A project, even if you have to create a new one to more specifically achieve the goal, is likely the way to go. It becomes a āmeeting placeā for like minded people, and if the benefit is realised, then the membership and participation will increase. As a tangible āthingā rather than just a process, it becomes easier to promote as wellā¦ you can add the project url to your signature, and you can link it in comments whenever you see relevant observationsā¦
It is rare to find observations where the observer has opted for not allowing them to be added to projects, or for that matter opting out of allowing fields to be added. Because you donāt want ALL marine observations, just the ones not identified, a traditional project is likely to be the best option anyway.
just as an afterthought, I wonder if it would be possible to create a collection project to pick up āState of Matter Lifeā only (ie no descendant taxa) from marine locations. Then when they get identified they would automatically drop out of the project! It would be difficult to include all marine environments accurately though, so I doubt this is feasible.
Continuing that thoughtā¦ another possibility would be to add a field āMarine unknownā to observations, and have the collection project pick up obs with that field and āstate of matter lifeā exclusively. They would drop out as they get identified, and then perhaps have a seperate private project picking up that field and NOT āstate of matter lifeā so that the field can be cleared (just for tidiness).
re the afterthoughtsā¦ nopeā¦ canāt pickup on fields :(
I guess Iāll use the comments field and hope this helps interested experts find my unknowns/state of matter/life.
I do like the idea of a collection project, itās an interesting possibility.
I like the sounds of using a project as a collecting hub.
One could set a Project up for āMarine LIfeā , Diseased Plants, āSeaweedyā and etc.
Those inclined could add from unknown and State of matter Life observations that they felt fit into the Project of interest.
Then experts and novices with such inclinations could be invited to subscribe to those Projects for the purposes of refining the identifications. They could identify unknowns and State of matter Life at a narrower level.
Is this along the lines of what you were saying @kiwifergus ?
yes. There is an Australasian Fishes project, I think, specifically for ā¦ well ā¦ Australasian Fish!
https://inaturalist.nz/projects/australasian-fishes
It gives a good example of the scope that such a project could get to. Notice the level of organisational support that this project now hasā¦
It would be highly recommended to browse the existing projects to see if there is anything that meets your needs :)
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.