More than one specie per observation

[M. Eiterer]

I have noticed that some users are posting more than one species on the same note. What to do in this case?

[Tony Iwane]

Can you post the URLs of some of these observations?

Tony

[Charlie Hohn]

if they are different photos with different species, I usually ask the user to use the copy feature to divide them out

[M. Eiterer]

Tony, there's a case. I have left a comment, so that the user makes the correction. But in some cases it seems that the user started to post and then stopped. The error will remain. Follow the link for one of the cases with photo of Pilea cardierei and Tradescantia pallida andhttps://www.inaturalist.org/observations/6284871

[paloma]

There are many observations on iNaturalist which, like this example, contain different species in different photos. I have noticed that people often ignore comments to make separate observations for each species. I too would like to know whether iNat has a preferred way of dealing with these, as some people (like me) have decided to just skip these observations instead of trying to ID anything in them, and other people go ahead and ID whatever is in the first photo (which makes sense in a way, because if it's a new observation there is no way to know if additional photos are going to be added later anyway).

[Charlie Hohn]

it's best not to ID based on the first species, otherwise all the photos get added to the photos for that species, causing problems later. Bestto just ID as 'life' (or 'plants' if they are all plants, etc). Ideally there could be something inside the species ID to tag these or maybe a data quality flag. 

[paloma]

Yes, charlie, I think a data quality flag specifically for different species in different photos would be ideal. You make a great point about all the photos in an observation being added to the collection of photos for the ID'd species.

[M. Eiterer]

It would be better if he had something that marked that remark as a problem to be solved, drawing the attention of whoever passed it.

[bouteloua]

I usually ID to "life" or highest shared taxon, mark as community cannot improve ID (so that it no longer shows up in Identify), and leave a comment.

[bouteloua]

lowest* shared taxon

[M. Eiterer]

I was pleasead with her answer.

[paloma]

I agree with that approach, but I personally am going to continue to skip these types of observations, even if they are research grade, unless something is added to the checkboxes that makes it clear that this is the approach iNat wants. I have done it the way you're suggesting, and have gotten responses from the identifiers who think the first-photo approach is fine.

[M. Eiterer]

Paloma, I do not know if ignoring is good, becausae someone else, without realizing the  problem, can try to identify. Better  leave warning.Bu twell will
still have probelms in the future,

Em sexta-feira, 27 de outubro de 2017 13:14:52 UTC-2, M. Eiterer escreveu:

[cassi saari]

First photo ID approach is inappropriate in my opinion for the reason Charlie already mentioned. I find incorrect taxa on the taxon photo page from these multiple photo observations frequently. Of course you should only do as much QA as you want/can, and ignore as such, but it's insufficient as a community to just ignore them or to incorrectly categorize them by doing the first photo ID approach.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/inaturalist/-DREyjyjfmk/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[paloma]

If (as an example) an observation has three photos and one is of a different species than the other two, and I make a comment to that effect and check the "Community cannot improve ID" box, and subsequently the observer substitutes the problem photo with a photo that is of the same species as the other two, I do not get any notification that the photos have been fixed so that I can undo my checked box, and the observation will remain labeled "Casual" and will not ordinarily show up in the "Identify" tool. If, on the other hand, there were a box to check that specifically said "One or more photos don't represent the same species" and under "This observation will become "Research Grade when" there is included the statement "all photos in the observation represent the same species," then the observer might be alerted to vote "All photos represent the same species" and the observation would go back to "Needs ID," where it now belongs, automatically. I think that would make what is going on more clear to observer and identifiers alike, and help observers who have done their best to fix the photos but don't know they are supposed to now vote on "Community can improve ID."

[cassi saari]

The example you sent does appear to be casual grade to me, but I should have said that the community ID needs to be the lowest shared taxon. There are cases where there are so many "incorrect"/first photo IDs that it remains research grade even after you coarsify it. May need to tag someone in in those cases, or typically some of the initial identifiers withdraw or change their IDs.

I think some sort of alert to changes to DQA and photos would be clearer and preferable too. Right now no one is alerted to items checked in the DQA section or to changes to an observations photos or other data. So if a user fixes their inaccurate location, date, photos, etc, the user may not know to update that DQA section to allow it to be Needs ID or Research Grade, and the person who flagged it also doesn't get alerted. (this has been discussed a few times in other Google Group threads, though I am on too poor of internet to search for then and link them here)

--

[paloma]

Thank you for clarifying this for me, bouteloua.

[James Bailey]

I know people will be against it but I'd support a different curator role where you are able to remove photos from observations, or even separate them into a new observation under their page.

They've submitted the observation and their photos already, and willingly put them on iNat for data use, so it is hardly an invasion of privacy or misuse of power. It isn't even making observations on their behalf, because of the same previous reasons.

[Charlie Hohn]

or just the ability to flag all extraneous ones as 'different organism' and have the photo disappear like with copyright infringement

[cassi saari]

The location for those observations would likely be incorrect.

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017, 21:55 paloma <margaret...@gmail.com> wrote:

I like James' idea of separating the photos in these observations into separate observations. Maybe just duplicate the whole observation and then "disappear" the photos that don't belong in each one, as charlie suggested. Seems like no photos would be lost to iNat that way, the photos would end up under the right taxon, and all of the observations would regain Research Grade potential. I would favor a warning to the observer before it's done, however.

On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 9:26:33 AM UTC-7, James Bailey wrote:

I know people will be against it but I'd support a different curator role where you are able to remove photos from observations, or even separate them into a new observation under their page.

They've submitted the observation and their photos already, and willingly put them on iNat for data use, so it is hardly an invasion of privacy or misuse of power. It isn't even making observations on their behalf, because of the same previous reasons.

--

[James Bailey]

Often times they are not far separated at all. In fact, I've never seen multiple organisms in one sighting that represented more than half an hour difference. Now if they were taken on different dates...

So, the idea of deleting offending images may be a little safer, but I still think it would be fine to duplicate it.

[M. Eiterer]

This has 4 different plants on the same observation https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/7445438

[Calebcam]

See: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/2493069 

Caleb

[Royal Tyler]

Keep in mind also some of us accidentally post multiple images during the "duplicate this" function. I use this function a lot for recording many different species at one location, and due to the volume of observations am bound to make mistakes occasionally. Whatver you do, make sure the owner of the observation has the opportunity to fix it first, and assume they just made a mistake.

[Tony Iwane]

Best to ID the level that fits all photos and make a comment politely asking the user to separate the photos.

Royal Tyler, any reason you use the "duplicate" function rather than batch editing on https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/upload ? Just curious if there's a functionality missing there...

Tony

[Royal Tyler]

I just have always preferred uploading one at a time, and inputting time and date exactly to match each photo when possible.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/inaturalist/-DREyjyjfmk/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[paloma]

The discussion on this observation https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/2493069 is similar to other discussions on other observations that had made me inclined to just move on when I saw observations with photos of different species. I still would prefer if there were something very clear to check off in the Data Quality Assessment, so that there is some kind of consistency.

[paloma]

There is something else about this observation we're focusing on: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/2493069. According to the "observed on" and "submitted on" dates, the observation was submitted approximately two months' before it was observed. I think this is pertinent to bouteloua's concern earlier in this thread that having curators try to make these observations accurate is not really possible.

On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 6:17:27 AM UTC-8, Calebcam wrote:

[Calebcam]

That is a problem, no idea.

Caleb

[Chris Cheatle]

I too use the Duplicate function often, and have also forgotten at times to remove the original photo.

I use it perhaps for a different reason. I am finicky (some might use other adjectives) about consistency in my location data, keeping location names and co-ordinates consistent. If I am at the same park, trail etc, I want the location name to always be the same, same with the co-ordinates for ease in tracking my data from there, to make it easier for others to see what is there.

I can do this by either using the Duplicate function off an existing observation, or by opening an existing one and then cutting and pasting the information into the bulk uploader.

The functionality that is missing and I wish was there was the ability on like on other observation tracking platforms to be able to access a drop-down of locations I have previously recorded data at and choose that location for a new observation.

[Royal Tyler]

I agree Chris. I use it for similar reasons. Since I can't choose a location like "back porch" or "back corner of field" I just use the duplicate function of a previous sighting if I don't have the actual coordinates. I also record a lot of locations on the mobile app without photos, then come back and upload quality photos from my DSLR, but if I take a lot of observations in one general area I save time and use the duplicate function in that case also.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/inaturalist/-DREyjyjfmk/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Royal Tyler

Owner/Operator

Pro Pest and Lawn Store

work email: propest...@gmail.com

[Tony Iwane]

Sorry for sidetracking this thread a few posts ago. I'll just reply one more time about the duplicate observation thing. I wanted to share that I use my phone or a handheld GPS device to track me while I'm in the field and then use the GPS track to geotag the photos on my computer when I get home. Then I don't have to worry about anything while I'm in the field except for taking photos, and I'm automatically getting location data for each photo I take. I made a short video showing the workflow here: https://vimeo.com/175298466

OK, let's reserve this thread for the multiple species photos in an observation discussion. Many apologies. If you have thoughts about the uploader or the workflow I just shared, please start a new thread or emails us a he...@inaturalist.org.

Tony

[paloma]

Okay, regarding multiple photos in an observation, I'd like a box to check on the Data Quality Assessment that simply says "Not all the photos are of the same organism," and have the observation automatically become casual as long as that has sufficient votes.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[paloma]

I meant photos with multiple species in an observation . . .

[Ian Toal]

I'd just like to add something to this conversation. People who do not post a lot of pictures (i.e. New people or folks like me who  have more skill with ID than a camera) may not realise they are posting more than one species at a time. It's called a mistake. There has been a case mentioned in this thread where the user appears to be fairly new, and sort of got piled on for doing it. I think we should cut people some slack, mention the mistake (which was corrected) and hope to correct the 'Research Grade' faux pax. 

Sorry, but I'm in sort of a snarky mood, and hope this does not come off as being an offensive post. 

Ian

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 10:14:52 AM UTC-5, M. Eiterer wrote:

[Tony Iwane]

I think Ian raises a good point in that polite engagement is the best way to deal with situations like this. Or, if it's a student, it's often best to try and engage their teacher and let them know the situation. iNaturalist is a community, and direct engagement is best. this is also addressed in our Community Guidelines: 

"Duplicate observations. They're not ideal, but they're usually due to oversight or bugs. Politely ask people to remove them but if they don't, it's not a big deal unless it becomes a habit."

Tony

[M. Eiterer]

Many different observations in this case.https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/6693619

Em sexta-feira, 27 de outubro de 2017 13:14:52 UTC-2, M. Eiterer escreveu:

[M. Eiterer]

I still find many cases and lots of photos.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/7709428

[James Bailey]

@paloma, I think "evidence of organism" would work for your purpose.

[James Bailey]

Also, any thoughts on comparison images? I often post these alongside single species photos to help with the identification/confirmation when similar species are nearby.

[bouteloua]

Do you have an example?

Making a separate observation and linking to that in the description/comment would make sense to me.

[Annabelle Corboy]

This may be a separate topic, but I don't know how to add a new topic, and it seems to be related to this one, anyway.  I just posted a photo with two Tufted Titmice in it.  Does that violate the rules of one species per observation?  I don't think so, but it assumes I'm correct in IDing them as the same species.  Just curious about how this kind of post should ideally be handled.

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/9322467

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 10:14:52 AM UTC-5, M. Eiterer wrote:

[James Bailey]

I can find one. An example being: 5 photos of 1 species, and then a 6th photo showing it next to a second species.

[cassi saari]

I think comparison photos are great! e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/7554300

As long as it's not a random photo of the comparison species from a different location/date that's photoshopped into the image or something. Those should be relegated to their own observation or embedded into the comments section.

cassi

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/inaturalist/-DREyjyjfmk/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[cassi saari]

Annabelle, I see nothing wrong with that observation. You could have a flock of thousands of birds and that's fine! You could even have many, many different species in the same photo and duplicate the photo/observation to identify each species separately. This topic is about observations with two or more photos where the species are different in each photo, e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/7709428

Also, you can start a new topic in this Google Group by going to https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/inaturalist (NEW TOPIC button in red at top center)

cassi

[M. Eiterer]

A different case, several images in one photo.https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/1554679

Em sexta-feira, 27 de outubro de 2017 13:14:52 UTC-2, M. Eiterer escreveu:

[Charlie Hohn]

hmm, that's a new one

[M. Eiterer]

What to do in this case, because you can not separate the photos.

[cassi saari]

There's not a clear answer.

Since we don't know what date or location each photo was taken (it says "btween May 15th and May 25th"), I think that it's reasonable to mark it as date and/or location inaccurate.

Also leave a comment for the user so that they're aware of the issue.

cassi

--