Actually, you can use “Identify” to review “research grade” observations. I do that something. I pick a particular species and review both RG and non-RG photos. That’s worth doing from time to time with any taxon of interest, especially ones that get misidentified often.
5 Likes
I used to fuss about “below standard” posts, mainly cultivated plants. However, I now just view them as a normal part of iNaturalist. I just mark the cultivated ones as “not wild,” or otherwise cope with, and move on. We do the best we can, and there’s lots of good data on iNaturalist even though it must be used with caution.
5 Likes
That is a pervasive social media problem. I don’t want to see XYZ so iNat shouldn’t show it.
2 Likes
I don’t think people should be surprised when they interact with a site whose primary focus, not exclusive, but clearly defined primary focus is naturally occurring wildlife, that a significant percentage of the people who are there don’t want to see something else.
4 Likes
Except where naturally occurring wildlife are or may be subject to impacts of cultivated and captive flora and fauna? I am primarily interested in the 100s of hectares of naturally occurring wild habitat in my urban neighbourhood (yes we are lucky here in Kaipatiki) and that habitat is influenced dramatically in extent, in diversity and in health by the spread and/or offspring of cultivated plants in the same neighbourhood.
The control or removal of invasive plants from gardens, parks and roadsides depends on people bring able to recognise them and be aware of their impact, and then knowing how to deal with them, that control is possible without devastation of all other life in their vicinity, and alternatives to cultivate.
5 Likes
They are surprised, though because (1) they don’t really know there’s a difference between wild things and cultivated things, (2) they don’t know iNat is supposed to be about wild things, and (3) they want to know the names of cultivated things and iNat is supposed to be a source of names.
5 Likes
Sometimes I get frustrated by the blatantly wrong IDs (Really? You labeled a shrub in the mojave as a seaweed?) but then I remember that the beauty of inaturalist is the ability for researchers to check the data for themselves. Sure, it’d be great it everything was always correct from the start, but I think it’s still an improvement over relying on reports from experts who provide no supporting evidence besides their word.
There’s some records on calflora that I am deeply suspicious of, and 90% sure the botanist reporting them just mis-identified it, but since there isn’t a picture of what they saw there back in 1988, I’ll never know.
10 Likes
I fully agree with the original post by liesvanrompaey.
1 Like
At age 77 I used to be a proper amateur botanist. I did a lot of Botanical Inventory working almost at a professional level. Then, I retired more or less. I forgot a lot. Then I found iNaturalist. A lot has come back. I am posting like crazy trying to create a picture of the plants that occur in different conservation areas. I wonder about my posts. I know I don’t use the app right because I don’t know how to use it. When I post, I am willing to stand behind my IDs 95% of the time. I have checked the hairs on the stem; I have checked that I have the correct ID between two difficult to separate species. My goal is to give a professional a poor, but nevertheless a picture of a place they might be interested in. Am I on the right track?
8 Likes
Absolutely!
And has been agreed and expanded by subsequent posts, iNaturalist is for as many different things as there are users on the platform (and more!), within the bounds of the Community Guidelines, Terms of Service, and Help guidance. Users who violate community guidelines tend to get called out by the community and/or flagged to staff’s attention.
Welcome to the Forum @lesbentley and @Bettycatbird!
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.