I treat obs. fields as a “kind” of annotation, because they can (and do) fulfill many of the same functions in terms of documenting life stages, sex, etc. etc.
Yes, there are deficiencies in the annotation system. By all means, folks should make their dissatisfaction known and ask iNat to address these deficiencies. Good luck with that. Once you have registered your complaints with the existing system, you have two options for what to do next:
you can sit on your hands and hope that iNat will someday overhaul the annotation system, and hope that whatever fixes they implement will address the shortcomings as you perceive them. Note that given the complexities involved, it’s unlikely that iNat will ever be able to implement an annotation system that will be a perfect fit for every taxon. Even if they try to fix the system and do a reasonable job of doing so, there’s always a chance your specific complaints will not be adequately addressed.
you can try to find one or more workarounds that allow you to get on with whatever you are trying to accomplish. I have suggested observation fields as one possible workaround for the shortcomings in the annotation functions. Not a perfect one perhaps, but a possible way to get at least some of the functionality required.
Since you say you have no plans to get involved in annotating observations, this doesn’t really apply to you. The deficiencies in the annotation system and possible workarounds would presumably be a largely academic discussion as far as you are concerned.
Yes, observation fields don’t influence the photo browsing functions, but in my world, that’s an insignificant feature (others will have a different opinion). As someone who actually does a lot of annotation of things like sex, insect life stages, colour forms, degree of wear, etc., and then uses that annotation data both inside and outside of iNat, I can say that observation fields are a useful and effective way to workaround shortcomings in the annotation system.
As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
I’ve adopted traditional projects. I find having an easily accessible map and stats nice to have.
I doubt there will be an update for annotations soon and staff don’t seem to have the time / interest / have bigger fish to fry, than to try and accommodate various taxon annotation nuances.
If it takes about 50 minutes for a teneral Chironomidge to become an adult. It essentially tells you the spawning location of the chiro versus dispersion by flight, wind, human vehicle, etc.
This is why I often write a comment that an individual is teneral, to maybe head off people thinking “but mine doesn’t look like the taxon photo!” Plus people often find it cool to learn that they saw something that just emerged from its pupa, and so I figure it can help reinforce happy feelings with their interaction with nature.
Since I’m mostly working in robber flies I had no idea it’s included as a life stage for some other insects, which does seem unnecessary. But the annotations system is so messed up anyway* and staff have been clearly not interested in fixing it for years that I mostly don’t bother with annotations.
*My favorite: the fact that nobody except the observer can fix or even outvote blatantly wrong annotations.
Yup - that’s another way of doing it. Every approach will have pros and cons. The downside of the project approach is that it might be less obvious to someone else than a field which explicitly indicates what is being being documented. In my case, I’m exporting the observation data for an external database that aggregates observation data from multiple sources (including extensive historical data). The maps/stats are generated there.
I agree. But to be fair, it’s a bit of a minefield for anyone attempting to fix this. Even if they do extensive consultation/research in an attempt to address the needs of various taxa, I predict that the day after they roll out a new version, they will be inundated with complaints that the special needs of taxon X, Y, and Z were not addressed. I wouldn’t want to be the one to responsible for fixing this. I’d rather stick needles in my eyes.
This is another advantage of using a workaround. You are not placing the burden of addressing your special requirements on the community at large (iNat staff don’t need to overhaul the platform, and other people aren’t stuck working with an even more complicated interface). You get to get on with the work you’re trying to do and so does everybody else. Everything is a compromise. At a certain point, you have to be honest about how “niche” your requirements are, and how reasonable it is to expect the platform to address them (keeping in mind that development resources are not infinite).
Fair enough - that was my point. Documenting tenerals may provide useful information for some taxa, and make less sense for others. One would have to assess the likelihood that anyone would ever find and report such a teneral, and keep in mind that many observations have inaccurate coordinates. There’s all kinds of things you can annotate. You have to pick your battles. If it makes sense to document the teneral stage for Chironomidges, and you have observers who can be trusted to do it properly, have at it!