05. http://inaturalist.github.io/walldash/build/


Hmm. Re: inaturalist.ca (and the other national portals) whats going on there is that sites can decide to show stats on the people page either based on the boundary (e.g. obs made within the Canada boundary) or based on portal users (e.g. obs by all people with their account affiliation set to iNaturalist.ca). Looks like all 4 national portals are set to account affiliation.

That would also make obs search (which is counting based on the Canada boundary) differ from the people page (which is currently counting based on account affiliation). Its a simple flip of the switch to change how the iNaturalist.ca people page is counting (e.g. based on the boundary rather than affiliation) but the iNat.ca admins should probably make this decision (cc'ing James Page).

Charlie, Wolfgang, Colin et al.,

RE: the consistency of counts on the people page and obs search (portal issues described above aside). I think everybody is in agreement that the counts on the people page should probably match the counts on obs search but seems like there's lots of disagreement on what should be counted. Specifically:

Counting photoless observations (currently photoless obs are 'casual'):
Charlie indicated he wants to count obs without photos. My personal concern with that is that massive CSV uploads of photoless observations can totally crush the stats and leaderboards.For example, check the 'past 100 days' graph here:
the peak in mid-April was a real bump in engagement due to the City Nature Challenge. Contrast that with the peak mid-May which was due to one person uploading a giant CSV uploading tens of thousands of photo-less observations in the span of 1/2 hour. Similarly look at the 'top user' from 2016:
http://www.inaturalist.org/people/leaderboard/2016 because this page is counting photoless observations, the winner is 'nzgardenbirdsurvey' which is a account not associated with a real person associated 10s of thousands of photoless archived observations. It doesn't seem fair that the 'prize' should go to this account over JC Carpenter (reallifeecology) who personally attended something like 100 Biobltizes during 2016 and uploaded over 15k observations with photos.

Counting observations of planted/captive things (currently captive obs are 'casual'):
Colin's indicated that he wants to count obs of captive things (as the people page is). Definitely a fair opinion. But personally I differ on this one. For example, this year the winner of the City Nature Challenge (which was set to count all obs including casual, captive observations) was someone who walked around the Inner Sunset of San Francisco and made observations of every potted plant on everybody's stoop: http://www.inaturalist.org/projects/city-nature-challenge-2017 I can't speak for others, but this was personally a major disincentive for me to get excited about the competition (as a naturalist I just can't seem to get excited about what people have in their pots on their stoops - I know my personal views here don't reflect everybody, but I have to be honest that it just takes the fun out of the 'game' for me).

Counting all taxa or just species or 'leaves with subspecies rolled up to species'
No ones expressed opinions about this so far in this thread. But this is another discrepancy that would have to be resolved. Here I'm also a personal fan of how obs search is counting (leaves with subspecies rolled up to species) but I'm sure there's subspecies aficionados out there or species purists who want it some other way.

So while it would be nice to get everything consistent, I'm not sure how we can the political buy in to make everybody happy here. Which is the main reason things are sort of grid-locked into the status quo which is a mish-mash of different ways of counting across the site

Orcon, WTW, 90%+, paar duizend aan spullen, paar duizend aan installatie (afhankelijk van wat je zelf kan), ruime eengezinswoning woning, jaren 1960 - volledige renovatie naar niveau 2025




66. Interactions, Relaties, Verbondheid

more details here: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/add-interactions-to-species-pages/433/16 here are many ways. Have a look at

Now a lot depends on your philosophy.

For instance you can just add an interaction (one of the many fields): and name the other side of the interaction.
But that assumes that you know the other organism, and that if you have it wrong you will fix it, and that if the name changes taxonomically, then you will fix it.

see https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/specific-animal-plant-interactions

My philosophy is that you put both as observations and then link them: that way the community takes care of the identifications, and the link will remain no matter what.
If you follow my philosophy look at:

How can we get this higher up the “desired” list of features?
Both the New Zealanders and southern Africans have projects dealing with this.
Ours is visible at https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/interactions-s-afr 4

Basically, we record only the active interaction (i.e. “a eats b”, not “b is eaten by a” - the latter just being the reciprocal of the first), although user pressure has resulted in us adding a passive field for the reciprocal observation, given that observations fields link only one way, so that these observations do not display their hosts) as:

Visiting flowers: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Visiting%20a%20flower%20of:%20(Interaction) 6
Eating: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Eating:%20(Interaction) 5
Parasitizing: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Parasitizing:%20(Interaction) 1
Attached to: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:attached%20to:%20(Interaction)
Carrying: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Carrying:%20(Interaction) 1
Associated with: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Associated%20with:%20(Interaction)
& the passive

Note that in each case the field value is the url of the interacting observation. Unfortunately we cannot use this is a query to summarize the interactions.
We can ask
“What flowers does the Cape Sugarbird Visit?” - https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=113055&subview=grid&taxon_id=13442&field:Visiting%20a%20flower%20of:%20(Interaction)= 3
but we will only see the bird, and not the flowers, even though all the urls to the flowers are in the field - see: https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields/7459 2.

In over 5 years of using this “set” of interactions, we have never had a request to add additional interactions (e.g. Eating = preys on = killing to eat - i.e. “killing for fun” has not cropped up), although it would be nice to have a hierarchical dictionary of interactions (e.g. visiting a flower > pollinating a flower (> for nectar, pollen, oil, gum)/robbing a flower/, etc

I’m happy to leave the test=interactions thing available, I’m just not going to make it visible by default or integrate it into the UI. I don’t think we need to ice this topic, as I think the title sums up what we want pretty well. Personally, I think the Feature Requests category is a way to gauge what kinds of things people are interested in, and not necessarily specific implementation plans, so it’s valuable to me to know how many people chose to upvote this. In fact, I will spend one of my votes on it right now

plant Lantana camara apparently “visits flowers of” 46 species of insects, rather than the other way around https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/50333-Lantana-camara?test=interactions 13). Is it a functionality you can leave available, or are there reasons not to do so?

We investigated this when we redesigned the taxon page in 2016 (yikes, that was a while ago). I just made it so you can see what we did by appending test=interactions to any taxon page URL, and I’ll use examples to explain why we didn’t develop this any further.

The big problem looming over this whole feature is that observation fields are a bad way to model interactions. Since they represent a totally uncontrolled vocabulary, they’re rife with synonymous fields, so it’s hard interpret situations where, for example, there are both eats and preys on interactions, e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/117520-Enhydra-lutris-nereis?test=interactions 28. What’s the difference? Why are both supported?

Another problem is that using observation fields to model interactions means that one of the two taxa in the interaction is not subject to crowdsourced identification, so anyone can say that oaks eat humans and there’s nothing the community can do to correct that. As an example, here’s a butterfly that supposedly eats itself: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/51097-Papilio-zelicaon?test=interactions 16. It doesn’t, this is just due to an erroneously added observation field. Site curators could just delete this field, but that’s generally not how we like to perform quality control at iNat.

On top of that, we really wanted to incorporate data from GLoBI 12, since we like them and we think it’s cool that they incorporate iNat interaction data, but mapping taxonomies and field semantics proved a hassle, and again it presents the problem of data that the iNat community can’t correct if they find errors.

What we’d like to do is to make a new feature for interactions where an interaction is a relationship between two observations with clear and controlled semantics (to the extent that that’s possible). So instead adding an obs field that says an obs of an oak represents that oak eating a human, you would create an interaction and have to choose two observations, one of an oak and another of a human, and choose “eating” from a menu of interaction types where “eating” means “taxon A is putting all or part of taxon B inside its body for the purpose of personal metabolism” or something. Other users could then vote on whether that was the correct interaction type, and the two observations could be independently identified. We could try and pre-populate this new kind of data with observation fields, or at least make a tool that helps people review their own interaction obs fields to make new-style interactions out of them. That’s a lot more work, though, and it hasn’t really been a priority, so we haven’t gotten around to it.

Anyway, that’s a long way of saying that I agree this would be cool, but doing it right will take considerable effo

Publicado el 04 de septiembre de 2018 a las 08:53 PM por ahospers ahospers


No hay comentarios aún.

Añade un comentario

Entra o Regístrate para añadir comentarios