Christmastime
I continue to find, to my horror, that Scientifically unverified records, of seaweeds particularly, are collected in the GBIF Portal as Research Grade Observations.
I spent some of Christmas Day wandering iNat's Hawaiian shores looking at a few - MUCH better value than even Free TV though no better than iSpot's comradeship
I found such delights as the only iNat confirmed record of Ulva expansa
https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/1841195209 - do they disappear when the ID changes?
Seen here https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/11430729 yet with no 'hard' evidence and without a challenge.
I will never disrupt the flow of Observations here, whatever I do or write, but I do think there is a serious principle at stake.
Is iNaturalist a Citizen Science Site or a Citizen Observation Site?
Comments
Unfortunately, iNat has no reputation system. As a consequence it is a 'communistic" site and everyone is equal. Thus the expert's ID counts no more than a schoolkid, and two skoolkidd's IDs = "research grade" (although it will take 3 schoolkids IDs to outweigh an expert and swing the ID in their favour)
There was talk of a reputation system this time last year, but it was entirely internal - so outside expertize counts nothing:: you have to earn it onsite. Which means if you are the only person on earth who can identify species some obscure genus, then you can never earn a reputation in that group because no one can agree with you. However, if you are a schoolkid, and you get your mates to agree with you, you can become an expert in any group.
This is what happens for a site that started for common species, where there are good guides and anyone can understand and get to know a group. But it does mean that the site fails dismally for tricky groups, and species-rich regions, and taxa without field guides. However, the majority of the users are vociferous and deny it (and come from parts of America with a handful of species).
Because of this we game the system: for our experts in southern Africa we have a few users who just agree with their IDs in their specialist group, and we hope that they are correct.
I think GBIF is updated every few months.
But no one will read this here (or more correctly, within a few weeks you will be chatting only to like-minded people and outside of the mainstream site). If you want to discover the full opinion of users, then try posting the above here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/inaturalist (although if you search, you will discover the topic is well discussed, but totally unresolved).
Thanks Tony and VERY good wishes.
I knew as much but thought I should say it again. To be honest there are a few Curators here who should know better than to add blind agreements and NOT respond to requests. So any Reputation system may be flawed anyway. What expert will agree, in writing, to a species from a single photo, even of a Giraffa camelopardalis tippelskirchii? without saying why? (https://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/africafieldcourses/2013/02/05/guide-to-kenyan-species-giraffes/)
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/18896450
Personally, I do not think there should be a Research Grade, just loving agreements or well thought-out arguments against. We can see that once an organism reaches RG, interest is lost!
I am not in despair; I like posting here, but in my long-style. And I MUCH prefer comments about, than agreements with, my Obs.
Onwards, confidently, into 2019 then...
I’ll respond. I’m a layperson who joined iNaturalist during one of the city vs. city bio blitz competitions originated by the California Academy of Sciences. I have submitted quite a few seaweed observations. I do my best to identify them using the resources (including machine learning) available on iNaturalist, but I often miss the mark. I’m grateful when people take the time to point me in a better direction. I have also learned that visual observation alone won’t always provide enough information to positively identify specimens at the level the OP desires. I agree that it’s not difficult to earn the ‘research level’ designation. But I don’t think that diminishes the site’s value as long as you think of iNaturalist as a scientific tool, rather than an encyclopedia. (And I only wish I lived in a world where schoolkids take enough interest in the natural world to game the site!)
Nicely 'said' Michele. The value of iNaturalist is GREAT; the value of Research Grade is not so great.
The greatest value is in the number of Worldwide people actually gaming here.
Thanks
When I worked in the herbarium, there was a lovely sign. It said “Herbarium, Keep out!”
I know why it was put up — there’s sensational material in the herbarium (invasive species, rare locations, and of course, illegal drugs!), but it’s also where just the experts are allowed to curate and participate. Sure, some laymen would collect plants for the herbarium, but it would just be up to the experts to curate.
One of my favorite things about iNaturalist — the sign on the outside says “Welcome!” :)
We all have the fun task of curating and contributing — as with every natural history collection (physical or digital), it is eternally incomplete and will forever need curating. With the friends that I’ve gained from using it, I’m ok with that task. :)
When a researcher comes to data-mine iNaturalist to address a question, I would hope that he/she/they would also feel the impetus to curate the observations that they would use for their research questions. In the meantime, I too use the “tag the person that I know that may know people that know.” :)
Also, happy Christmas, DJ! :)
yes, yes...YES; neat Sam, thanks!
Have a good 2019, I'll be around.
Hi dejaym,
I share your frustration - I have also downgraded a few Ulva observations to genus level, for the same reasons. And, for example, I try to stay on top of observations for Cladophora columbiana, having stumbled upon this one particular species for no apparent reason: It is a marine alga from the North American Pacific coast, but somehow people end up using this name for mosses from terrestrial locations (including from Northern Ireland...!). I thought that maybe it is an algorythm in iNat that suggests this name to anything looking like a green cushion regardless of habitat, so I tried it with one of my moss pictures, but it did not work (maybe it was too obviously a moss?). Now I wonder, how people end up with this name then. Or how they decide some green leafy alga must be Ulva lactuca, if they have not had any experience with seaweeds before. Do they still consult books?? Or am I missing something else here?
Anyway, I hope you all had a nice Xmas, and wishing you a good start into the new year!
We will all soon be eating our words when AI does identifications with an accuracy we can only dream of achieving.
Until then, its back to the books.
Have a great New Year!
svenja - you might have missed the fact that the Suggested Species IDs begins with Ulva lactuca and Fucus distichus and Cladophora columbiana respectively. It's always easier to choose the first on a list. Yes? Oh, and "if there's one nearby then THIS must be the same" and Oh "that's a nice name, I'll agree"
Tony - HI will always be better than AI at guessing and will AI be capable of cynicism?
Honest though, I am in for great year here
https://youtu.be/-JlxuQ7tPgQ
dejaym, but you first have to type something like Cladophora into the mask for the name to appera. So how do people get there with a moss on their hands, I wonder...?! Anyway, great video link, tonyrebelo - scary to think this may come true one day!
You dont need to type anything. Put your cursor into the box and the AI kicks in finding matches. Beware it is trained in the USA. It is getting betterer ...
Add a Comment