Sure, and in either case the observation needs another ID
1 Like
That’s true if the only objective is to get an observation to RG status, but withdrawn IDs are often a good indicator that a taxon is tricky and can be mistaken for something else which is shown by the withdrawn ID. There’s the “similar species” tab for each taxon, but it’s not quite the same as seeing this happen in actual observations.
2 Likes
There is no data capture on the reason for withdrawn IDs. Many are withdrawn for user interface reasons. Not a data capture issue
The damage is still done. Withdrawing their contribution is destroying the body of knowledge, regardless of how they do it.
5 Likes
A deleted ID is gone without a trace. A withdrawn ID leaves a record of what was there, even if it is no longer active.
Given a choice between these two options only, the latter seems vastly more preferable.
14 Likes
Tiwane had specific examples. Some people disagree with how the site is run or moderated, some leave because they find the site too addictive and want to break free, some leave because of personal life reasons like changed job or divorce or mental health struggles or other things where they need privacy or want to remove a past part of their life. People are always going to change their mind about being in communities sometimes. Most of those things are probably unavoidable. I do agree that complete obliteration of the IDs is a problem, I understand why iNat lets people do it, but it’s a difficult and maybe unconventional choice that does have huge downsides. I wish at least a note not influencing research grade would be left when someone deletes their account, as others have suggested here too.
15 Likes
This is an interesting idea, but I think there’s an open question of whether or not it should be applied to observations that don’t have CC licenses or not. If the observation is published as all rights reserved, this type of dataharvesting and storage may not be appropriate/allowed.
A user is certainly within their rights to remove content from their iNat account, even if they publish it under a Public Domain license (the most open license possible). That license doesn’t require a user to continue to have any data/observations under their account in perpetuity. It just lays out what other users can/can’t do with the content that they’ve posted. For instance, if a user publishes content under certain CC licenses, that content is available for designated uses according to the license in perpetuity as long as the accessing user accessed/downloaded that information while it was posted under that license, even if the original poster later deletes it.
This statement is incorrect:
There are restrictions on what iNat can do with uploaded content which are included in the ToS. The most relevant section is: “By submitting Content to iNaturalist for inclusion on the Platform, You grant iNaturalist a world-wide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, adapt, and publish the Content solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing, and promoting Your observations and journal via iNaturalist, and for the purpose of displaying or promoting the Content or iNaturalist itself in other venues, such as social media or software distribution platforms.”
For instance, iNat would not then be able to turn around and sell a user’s photos that they posted to publishing companies, etc.
3 Likes
I think Tiwane wanted us not to speculate about any one person in particular.
As for debating where to put your energies, well, that’s a difficult question, for sure! It’s winter here where I am, so I’ve been spending lots of time IDing on iNat. But I’ve recently realized that I’m spending so much time on iNat I’m not getting other priorities in my life accomplished. So, I’ve decided I will do an hour a day of IDing at most, most of the time, for now. For you, you might decide that once a week, you’ll upload photos of undescribed species, range expansions, etc., for a couple hours and then go do something else. Sure, it’s worth worrying a little about whether all of iNat data will be around in a decade or a century, but my gut feeling is telling me that nothing in life is certain, that scientists/naturalists can “disappear” in real life just as easily as online, and that making data available now via iNat is a fast and efficient way to get information out to other people who can use it.
9 Likes
interesting words to find in our here and now. wow
Do you have an active iNat profile? There is no link on your forum profile.
@tiwane is iNat staff. If you don’t know the people who have left iNat - it would not be appropriate for you to - asking for a friend - why DID you leave iNat?
I won’t discuss those further, by the way, I just wanted to give some wide-ranging examples - said @tiwane
6 Likes
That objective is correct. However, they support that goal with the citizen science impact, and they (iNat management) track publications that use iNat data. The inference is those publications validate the general utlitily of iNat’s app/system/verification process/community IDs etc, which in the end produces data shared with GBIF and others. My view is that the data is ephemeral if users can mass delete (a) their own observations, and/or (b) their IDs and comments. There are different arguments applicable to (a) and (b), but I disagree with the current approach.
See also jnstuart’s comment earlier in this thread:
as for this.
That is the big question.
5 Likes
An ID isn’t ‘simple data’
Who says it is that species?
Does that identifier have a track record of identifying that taxon?
Did they dip in yesterday, and wander around iNat clicking a few random buttons to see what happens? Is it the scientist who is working on the taxonomy of … and their ID is currently the one that counts?
Approximately 40-50 if you include people that I have met, along with others that I spoke with but not have not met, and those that I’ve had offline email contact with (usually regarding my observations). I introduced quite a few people to iNat and walked them through the highlights. I was trying to develop a regional network of observers and identifiers for Lepidoptera. It is fairly easy to confirm the existence of many users if you are interested.
@sopacexplorer this is what I was referring to:
yeah this does strike me as a bit off. I don’t know if that poster is a white man, but yeah.I wasn’t sure how to take it, i guess it makes more sense now that they clarified after I wrote this.
Well, it’s certainly relevant to know who made each ID.
Bottom line, nothing is permanent, in some ways iNat is less permanent than other things like herbarium, but in other ways it is more permanent. A few years ago the Pringle herbarium at University of Vermont caught on fire, in this case disaster was mostly averted but one can easily imagine the whole herbarium could have been lost. iNaturalist can’t just burn down. What we need is both sorts of data. There are many things herbariums can provide that digital collections can not, but there are also many things iNat can provide that a herbarium can not. Same holds true for other sorts of data. The vulnerabilities are different.
8 Likes
I should clarify - I’m more concerned about bulk deletion of data. Bulk withdrawal could still cause the same damage to the status of the obs, although (assuming the suggested taxon was still visible) one would see that someone had withdrawn ID XYZ so could use that information to repair the obs status (worst case). Bulk deletion leaves no trace of the original ID but still potentially damages the obs status with no hint to help repair the damage.
Regardless of the method, the outcome is the same - a bunch of saps like me spend time picking up the pieces.
7 Likes
Yes, it’s important that we see iNat as just one resource out of several. We must mitigate the risk by not putting all our eggs in one basket.
We have plenty of extremely capable naturalists who know their patrimonial land well and have extensively documented the taxa, however you may not be familiar with the systems and organizations in which the data is stored. (That is OK; non-Mexican people, of all colors, are constantly learning from the databases and resources here.)
Here is one example:
That said, you sound super busy, so please do not feel you need to waste any time here, at all.
Saludos.
4 Likes
Yes, I understood you :) My impression, based on statements by staff in the thread from 2019, is that completely eliminating the option of bulk removal of data in some form upon account deletion is not being considered. (Though I imagine some users would opt keep their contributions intact when leaving iNat if they had a way to do so.)
So I see it as a question of how we can reduce the amount of damage and chaos caused by such an event, if we cannot prevent it entirely. Withdrawal/deactivation of IDs would allow for the possibility of reconstructing the data (particularly if paired with new searchability options); the current practive of deletion does not.
Here and in other threads, users have brought up the issue of how to evaluate IDs attributed to an anonymous deleted account. I see this as a strong argument for such IDs not counting towards the community ID, though I recognize that there are also good arguments for keeping the IDs active – I’ve certainly experienced the consequences that account deletions by prolific IDers have for other users working on the affected taxa.
We can prevent it entirely by pushing for (and not accepting anything other than) a proper, complete solution. If that means voting with our feet, so be it.
3 Likes