Well, it's been nearly 6 years since the inception of this project, created on a whim to fill a void. Completely surpassing my fairly unassuming initial idea, Global Bat Watch has grown to over 3,100 contributors (about 700 project members). As both professional bat researchers and citizens scientists alike, we have collectively provided nearly 9,000 observations representing more than 500 species across 6 continents. When I started providing observations to iNaturalist in 2012, this platform didn't have nearly the functionality it does now, let alone the user base.

For the first post, and I hope more follow, I’d like to thank @jakob for injecting some renewed energy into GBW. Also, to say hello and thank you to our new curators: @cellardoor, @dc_stokes, @juancruzado, @krysta, @lancillotto, @lily_trujillo, @mperdicas, @natalie, @stsang, @svaldvard, @vespadelus, @liuid , and @yuriaguire88. This taxonomic and geographic expertise will have a positive effect on the overall robustness of the observational data.

For 2018, I have some goals I’d like to submit for group discussion:

1. Photos. Of course, bats are not the easiest critters to photograph, and sometimes observers can’t/won’t/shouldn’t get any closer to the subject matter. However, an additional photo or two, or one from a slightly different angle can make the difference between a “Vespertillionidae” identification and a “Myotis lucifugus” one, for example. If there’s an opportunity to gracefully educate a contributor as to how to take a diagnostic photo of a bat, take it.
2. Range. I’ve come across many observations that didn’t fit into the conventional species range maps. Some of these observations were undeniably the species in question, while others are fuzzy. However, these range extensions represent crucial data, not only for the realm of conservation and academia, but for regulatory agencies as well. This last part may not apply to all geographic areas. If there are credible, peer-reviewed observations supporting range extensions, this is information that should be addressed. As professionals in your respective fields and geographic areas, you undoubtedly have connections with state/provincial, national, and academic institutions for whom these data are invaluable. I would highly recommend flagging these observations for submittal. Something that @jakob brought to my attention recently is that GBW feeds into GBIF—the Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Our observations are then comparable to a scientifically curated museum voucher. Most people working on updating range maps will access GBIF records, so anything approved within iNaturalist and shared via GBIF should find its way into these assessments. Should.
3. Recruitment. Data validation will only get better with more eyes. Of course, things get slightly more complicated as well, but the up outweighs the down. Please get in touch with your colleagues. They may be adverse to “one more thing” at first, but iNaturalist is such a wonderful platform that it speaks for itself with even a modicum of use. Let’s see if we can help turn the 3,100 contributers into 3,100 members.

If there are any other goals that make sense, please let us know. Aside from that, thank you all for your contributions and memberships. Happy batting!

-Jason