That is why we made the Placeholder Backup (almost 38K obs) project. So we could keep the observer’s info visible, despite iNat. I hope placeholders will either disappear on the website - or have a dedicated field where the observer decides to delete. Or not.
I’m aware of your project. But since the new app no longer includes the placeholder option at all, this would seem somewhat irrelevant to the context here, no?
I was purely concerned with the functionality of the new app and specifically the options for entering IDs that are not CV suggestions. Presumably the search function (taxon lookup) will not work very well if one does not have an internet connection and cannot save a typed text in this field for use later. If this is the case, it is relevant to the question of how the search button should be displayed if it only can only be used while online (if it is difficult to enter IDs in text form, this could also contribute to the CV suggestions being given more weight than they should – the concern expressed in the original post).
2 Likes
I don’t know if I’m posting in the right place, but I have the same concerns. I just did my first large batch of uploads on the new app (iOS), and I found the use of CV very frustrating, especially since I have become a more prolific identifier in the past year. As a former bird bander, I find myself extremely cautious identifying any organism to species. On the old app, I always felt comfortable picking a genus at least until I got home and could consult with a hardcover field guide. Or if I was completely unsure, I always felt that genus was a safe bet and that it would at least take two people to make my observation RG if I was wrong.
Also, I’m not sure if the app has changed since this thread first started, but when I upload the observation below, the only option I get is a species, and I can only save or discard the observation. I can edit the ID once I save it. I could then manually change the ID to “oaks,” but it doesn’t even give that as an option. I really miss the “We’re pretty sure it’s in this genus” feature. It makes me feel very uncomfortable selecting a species I know nothing about just based on the CV’s suggestion.
If anyone is collecting feedback, I would like to suggest bringing back the “We’re pretty sure it’s in this genus” suggestion. Thanks for reading.
6 Likes
I’m not 100% sure of this, but based on my experience, I think you’ll need to change your settings to “Advanced Mode” at the top and to “Edit observation” in the section “After taking or importing photos, show:” – I also found this confusing and terrible for my usage of iNat, but I believe your screenshot shows only the process if the app is allowed to show “Suggestions” in the “After taking photos…” setting section. this was indeed a recent change to the default settings. I guess maybe it could be useful for beginner users, but the unilateral plastering of solely the top suggestion all over the screen is not what I personally want.
I totally agree that the “We’re pretty sure it’s in this genus” top suggestion is much missed. this thread also sort of relates to the larger CV problems with excessively specific, usually species-level, ID suggestions.
4 Likes
Thank you so much for your reply! That fixed the issue of the app making me agree with its top choice right off the bat. I still would like for iNat to bring back the “We’re pretty sure it’s in this genus” option.
2 Likes
I share many of the same concerns, but this is the direction that was chosen for the now standard mode. The idea is to mitigate the issue by suggesting a higher level taxon if the model doesn’t predict a species at a high enough confidence level. But we will definitely have to see how it goes once this app gets more widely used and adjust from there.
Not exactly the same, but it’s pretty easy to get to a genus or higher ID from the ID Screen in Advanced mode by tapping on a suggestion (just not on the checkmark). Then, on the taxon page scroll down to the taxon you want and then tap on it. Then tap on the green “Select this Taxon” button.
1 Like
Just out of curiosity, how high is high enough? (Apologies if you or somebody else already answered that somewhere 
)
1 Like
I would consider this really, really problematic.
Not just because not all species are in the CV or because the CV is pretty bad at certain taxa.
But because it encourages users to rely on the CV. It shapes the interaction with the app as: upload a photo, get an ID. No thinking required. No cautious top suggestion that might encourage them to realize that the CV isn’t magic or all-knowing or infallible. No obvious way to enter one’s own ID if one prefers.
While I recognize the desire to make the app as simple to use as possible for new users, I think simplifying this particular aspect of the interaction with the CV to such an extent is a big mistake. If users are encouraged to uncritically rely on the CV from the start, it creates a habit that they are unlikely to change as they gain more experience with the app.
It is possible to enable people to engage with nature without doing so passively – as I suggested in the thread that got sidetracked, I would actually be in favor of going even further in the other direction and requiring users to provide some minimum input about what they think they saw before they get a CV suggestion. But even if there is no interest in implementing such an element, I think getting rid of the conservative genus-or-above top suggestion is a step backwards from the status quo.
13 Likes
I selected two RG observations of Ptychostomum torquescens that I am not involved with in any way:
https://inaturalist.ala.org.au/observations/175517073
https://inaturalist.ala.org.au/observations/223064535
The web app is “pretty sure” it is genus Ptychostomum (correct) and family Bryaceae (correct) respectively.
The top suggestion for both is Ptychostomum capillare which is at least 95% incorrect.
Ptychostomum torquescens does not appear among the suggestions.
I wonder what the Next suggestions are for the above and at what confidence level.
For the first one, Top ID suggestion in Next is P. capillare with 5/5 dots. Other suggestions are: Bryum dichotomum, Bryum canariense, Syntrichia laevipila, Ptychostomum imbricatulum. They all have 1/5.
For the second one, Top ID suggestion is Bryaceae (5/5), with Other suggestions being P. capillare (3/5), and B. canariense, Rosulabryum billardierei, Pohlia nutans (all 1/5)
1 Like
Ptychostomum torquescens is not yet included in the CV and therefore cannot be suggested.
2 Likes
Thank you for checking!
The first one is a step in the wrong direction. The correct genus level CV result has been replaced by a taxa level one that is, on the balance of evidence, incorrect.
I don’t know if this is related but I was trying to upload observations offline recently (I was bored on a plane flight in airplane mode) and had this issue where (a) it was suggested species where it shouldn’t have, (b) the genus/family wasn’t available offline (even for some pretty common taxa, like “turtles”), and (c) I couldn’t enter a placeholder. As a result I ended up going all the way up to selecting iconic taxa like Plants or Reptiles.
2 Likes
when you say “this is the direction that was chosen” – who chose it, and what was the reasoning? was this driven by development constraints or a desire to simplify the interface, an earnest assumption that the CV suggestion would be correct enough of the time, a preference to showcase the CV as the primary selling point of the app? is this detailed somewhere else that I’ve overlooked?
By people more senior and more involved in product than me (I’m in engagement), and the idea is to make it more welcoming to new users and help them get that “aha” moment. A lot of feedback we get (and I’ve seen this in person) is that it’s not clear exactly what the point of iNat is when someone new and especially someone not really into nature starts using the app. Carrie also discussed the more simplified mode here.
For what it’s worth, I’ve looked through thousands of observations made with the new app, of all data quality grades, over the past few days and I’m not noticing any trends of poorly chosen IDs, at least for California. At least nothing worse than normal, and maybe a bit better. But I think most people using the app are experienced users, so I’ll keep looking. When I’ve looked at observations in other parts of the world they also seem pretty realistic but I have less expertise in those areas.
If anyone else wants to do so, here are all observations made with the new app, of all data quality grades. You can add more filters beyond that. Of course, CNC has started and it will bring with it all sorts of confounding factors, so take those into consideration.
2 Likes
This is unbelievable.
For months, there was an entire Forum category specifically for feedback on the new mobile app. No sooner is that category closed than a topic consisting of feedback on the mobile app runs to 95 posts. Did nobody notice this before?
Is this the way new software releases normally go – big things are never noticed in beta testing?
This thread started in Sept 2024 and has had reasonably continuous discussion since then, though with 75% of the conversation happening in 2024. Characterizing this thread as
doesn’t seem to be an accurate representation to me.
3 Likes
This is one of the topics that I moved from iNaturalist Next Discussion to General today.
3 Likes