This sounds like it could be an excellent solution for misuse/abuse situations - and perhaps the lock could be temporary (say, for one month or so)? That would address the problem situation (or problem user) without limiting the functionality for everyone else.
1 Like
That would mean that some of the rarer (or lesser-known) taxa have no taxon photo, which is counterproductive because these are taxa that would benefit more from having one. There are a few times I have added a taxon photo that was not RG simply because there were no RG photos available.
6 Likes
Iāve seen SO many taxa with only the single auto-selected photo that have stayed that way for a very long time. Maybe people do more taxon photo editing in some areas (geographical or taxonomical), but it certainly isnāt true in many cases Iāve looked at.
If there are lots of photos to choose from, the probability of finding the ideal one is slim unless people are willing to put in a lot of time hunting. Alternatively, if there are relatively few, probably few people look at the taxon and therefore itās less likely to be updated anyway. Either way, relying on someone else to find the perfect photo seems doomed to failure.
4 Likes
I think the best solution would be just to limit specific users hability to edit taxon photos if we detect abuse the way I have with this user. I have wasted so much time deleting his non research grade photos from all the taxons he has edited that I have considered just quiting as a curator. I am burned out. This guy takes good RG photos from other users on the taxons he edited for his own non research grade (and some are wrong). And also has used sockpuppet accounts for increasing his own observations as RG.
I am still writing the email as Tiwane requested with the proof, but it is taking more time than expected. I am very frustrated and very tired to be honest.
I just sent a couple of emails from paulo.acevedo@gmail.com. One for a user that has 2 accounts and the other for this specific issue. Thank you!
1 Like
Please do not publicly show e-mail addresses like this. Every user, like me, can access this section.
2 Likes
I certainly understand that there are some frustrating edge cases but for every suggested restriction there are plenty of scenarios where that is going to cause more harm than benefit.
As a curator, I really want the number of tasks requiring curator privileges to be minimal. Most curators requested those rights because theyāre inspired to improve iNat in some way, and the more this feels like āworkā the less theyāre interested in volunteering time.
Restrictions make sense where the potential for disruption is high, so Iād support limitations on who can edit high-level taxon photos and maybe a few perennial targets (Felis catus?)
For the photographer who has to substitute their own photos for a carefully chosen selection of ID marks, Iād suggest trying to coopt them into improving taxon photo selection. Maybe link to a forum post or journal entry discussing good photo choices? No problem for them to add good photos of their own so long as the result is an improvement over the previous choices.
6 Likes
I agree, all the restrictions discussed above would have negative effects on a far greater number of more obscure taxa than are being impacted by people excessively changing pics. Just by way of examples Iāve dealt with, many species Iāve identified and added my own photos of arenāt research grade because I collected and identified the actual specimen separately; sometimes another expert might be able to do that, sometimes not, sometimes there is no other expert. In other cases, there are one or two other photos that are relatively poor quality, so mine is the only good one available. Also regarding limiting changes, itās not uncommon to choose a picture and then discover that itās actually misidentified (even for RG observations).
5 Likes
Perhaps we shouldnāt use taxon rank, but number of observations as a filter for locking images.
I partly agree with both sides. On rarer taxa, I have added some of my own photos as they definitely showed the subject the clearest and the identifying features (according to my sources) were most clearly visible.
On common taxa, the image keeps changing and I had to remove images a few times already because they were - while certainly very good photos - not good representation of the taxon.
4 Likes