Tags and Notes - What and Why?

[tgroo]

There is an observation field for linked observations which I often use when a photo is of more than one organism to clarify which the submission represents, or for repeat observations of one organism over time. It seemed like the linked observations were not noticed by identifiers, so I got in the habit of calling out the purpose of a linked observation in the notes.

I also use notes to record anything not captured by the structured data items which I perceive would be of interest to a naturalist (as opposed to the lister or taxonomist): behavior, context, details not captured by image. I don’t worry about whether there is a short-term value to the effort. In the long run, any pertinent natural history detail may have value to somebody someday — but only if it is on the record. For me, the image(s) and structured inputs are sufficient probably ≥95%, but I don’t hesitate when they are not.

[jasonhernandez74]

@paulbjones

First, with respect to tags, how important is it to add them to a record? And what information would typically be included in a tag?

Most of my observations have no tags. Most observations in general have no tags. When I choose to use a tag, it is for placing an observation into a category that particularly interests me (such as “tree,” “redwood forest,” or “cloud forest”).

@paulbjones

On other sites (eBird, instagram, flickr) I often provide some context with my posts - things like the circumstances of the sighting, ID info, local conservation issues, etc. Does this fit with the purpose of a note?

Yes, that is the usual use of notes.

@paulbjones

Third, is it worth the effort?

Only you can decide that, based on what your intentions are and whether these would be useful to you.