iRecord and iNaturalist

Just use iRecord. iNat records are poor, hence CEH have just sent a questionnaire to iRecord verifiers regarding iNat and its deficiencies. I'm fed up of iNat records with location details Derbyshire Uk, Grid reference SK.  I know another national scheme recorder who stated recently that he ignores most iNat records unless its a species of note.  The hours I spend chasing queries on iNat records and only about 20% ever respond.  
I thought it was just some of us in the UK that had issues with iNat and that in mainland Europe they use it more... but after discussion this morning with a national scheme coordinator in France it seems he too doesn't use iNat records and encourages everyone to use their own system which then feeds into the French equivalent of the NBN.
 

Hi

As far as I know (and I'm far from certain) there is currently no way to link your two accounts.

What do you record, why aren't your records on iNaturalist research grade and how many are there? It's possible you could ask iRecord users with an iNaturalist account to help bump your records up to research grade although records on iNaturalist tend to reach research grade pretty quickly if they have good quality images unless they're niche interests.

If you do go down the route of manually migrating your records then iRecord has a way of uploading records via spreadsheet which might make it a bit easier. You would need to delete your records on iNaturalist though to avoid duplication in case any of them later reached research grade. It sound like it could be quite a task.

Mesh

Thanks Mesh. I record anything of note in my garden and local area (stag beetles, orchids etc.) and I have a garden pond so I have newt records which could be very useful for LERCs. I also put up my bat, dormouse, and GCN license records. I'll look into the spreadsheet upload, thanks for suggesting it!

I agree with Jim. The quality of iNaturalist records coming through is rubbish - no sites or locations, no useful grid references, silly recorder names. I just ignore them now. USE IRECORD

I agree with the deficiencies in iNaturalist records that are imported into iRecord. 

Today, as a Verification Assistant, I received a Peacock butterfly record to verify from iNaturalist. The location description is wrong for the grid reference & the Peacock caterpillar is not recorded at the correct life stage, i.e. larval not adult.

There is no email address provided to contact the recorder to amend/correct any iNaturalist record information before verification

I'm the researcher behind the aforementioned project looking at the data quality of iNaturalist records imported into iRecord. All going to plan I should be able to share my key findings before the end of the year (and then fingers crossed get a proper paper published after that). General conclusions so far are really interesting; without giving away any spoilers, iNaturalist data does indeed have some considerable limitations in regards to data quality, but the issues most people perceive to be the greatest are often among the most minor problems in reality. Watch this space.

Julia

You can click the iNat link on the record and it will take you to the iNat record.  You can then message the recorder but, you need an iNat account and from my experience only about 25% respond, so their records just get rejected. 

My heart sinks every time I receive a 'you have new records from iNaturalist to verify' email notification. 
J

Thanks for your suggestion. I don't have an iNaturalist account so cannot currently use that option. Thankfully, I have very few records to verify from that source.

I know the feeling about notifications to verify iNaturalist records. Two more tonight but this time with the recorder's home address, including house name & postcode as the location so I can add GDPR concerns to the list of data issues... And, it says the village name is in Hereford when the grid reference is Powys, Wales. Utterly confusing...

From a plant perspective in Sussex iNaturalist records are widening the recording for common species yet tend to pick up the same rarities recorded by the recorders using iRecord. It is a different community using each platform on the whole so hopefully it is getting people interested and learning.

Additionally I've had a good response from contacting recorders to talk about licencing. Our LERC doesn't use any NC records and recorders don't realise this. Most are happy to change to a CC-BY or 0 licence so that there records can be useful.

Julia, I only set up an iNat account to query records, and its getting to the stage that I really cant be bothered with them.  It takes more time sorting iNat records into a half useable state than its worth.  Any I do look att get edited to casual rather than research grade as they are casual records at best and nothing more.  Some I feel like just deleting and some I just reject  - especially when the grid ref is just sheet letters eg TQ or SK. 

@josscarr This will be really interesting reading. Will it be open access?

I am new to inaturalist, but I really like it, mainly because you seem to get people from all over the world, potentially, reviewing your obs, and many appear to have in depth knowledge, though I do agree that just one other person agreeing your own id seems a bit too easy to get to Research Grade, as they may be as inexperienced, or more so, than me.

With irecord, you might wait years, and no-one has looked at your obs, which is quite disappointing, especially when compared to inaturalist.

I make a great effort to upload photos that I believe are good enough to allow an id, albeit, sometimes, through ignorance or lack of opportunity, I will not have photographed the necessary diagnostic detail. As far as I can tell, downloads from inat to irecord are daily, but limited to RG, correct licence, etc., which means they should have a correct location automatically.  I do not have any say in what contact details are downloaded, but would love to respond to any query.

I am frustrated that of 209 of my obs on inat that should have been downloaded to irecord based on the eligibility criteria, only 46 seem to have made it.

A big part of uploading records for me, is that they may be of some use in research, so it is very disheartening to hear that the inat records are considered so unfavourably by irecord verifiers, to the point that they are often simply ignored.

I don't know what the solution is.... inaturalist seems like such a potentially valuable resource, easy for all to use, and the prompt feedback aspect is definitely very appealing to amateur recorders who are trying to learn/improve.

Hello. I am a recent user of inaturalist (since May '25). I really like the feedback that you get from interested people all over the world, even though some are not very expert, but others definitely are.

I take a lot of care to upload only photos that I consider can reasonably be used to positively id the subject, usually from various different angles if I can. I understood that only those that have reached (RG) research grade are sent to irecord, so that the location must surely therefore be accurate??

I am therefore very disappointed to hear that some verifiers are so fed up with the poor quality they perceive as inaturalist obs in general. One of the reasons I take the trouble to take photos of decent (albeit amateur) quality, and upload them, is because I really want my efforts to assist with research.

I prefer inaturalist, because of the interaction, and ability to exchange the odd comment occasionally, to aid verification or understand better, which is unfortunately not available on irecord.

When I realised there was a daily download of RG obs, I felt I was OK to continue just with inaturalist, but now I am in a quandary - if I use both, I will end up duplicating entries, but I don't want to give up inaturalist, as the verifiers above are encouraging people to do.

I hope that joss carr's forthcoming paper will help to bring about better collaboration somehow.

PS I already wrote another comment earlier, but I'm not sure it has been published - apologies if they both end up on here, with perhaps some repetition.