Hello, I have used iRecord in preference to iNaturalist over the last year as I'd like to be able to contribute to the official recording of species. However, this has proved problematic in two ways:
- Many categories are rarely checked (e.g. birds or fungi) and others say they prefer a different recording platform (e.g. spiders)
- Speed of response and community engagement seems low. Part of the reason I use these systems is to confirm what I've seen to help me learn how to identify species more accurately. iNaturalist was excellent for this as the crowdsourcing meant that you quickly received verification to a decent standard - enough to help me learn. This was also enhanced by the fact I could build on my knowledge by verifying others.
I am recording a wide range of species over a specific site, so the idea of having to update different species to different systems is very unappealing. I imagine this is the case for many amateur recorders. Is there an effort for iRecord to become a more centralised aggregator of all these different platforms (presumably consistency and volume of input make this preferable to verifiers too?). Or to open this up to more casual verifiers in a similar way to iNaturalist (to support rather than replace expert identification)? Or is the current situation expected to be how things are for the foreseeable future?
Comments
Thanks James. That's very…
Thanks James. That's very helpful context. It creates some dilemmas for people looking to record a variety of species. For example, i'd like to use both iNaturalist and iRecord as that would be a simple way of both learning and submitting useful records. (and it sounds like I should also add BirdTrack/eBird to the mix).
BUT that has the potential of creating duplicate records if/when iNaturalist record reach the necessary standard and are filtered through to iRecord. Is there an easy way to prevent this that doesn't put extra work on the verifier?
The short answer, particularly to point 2, is that the situation is unlikely to change.
Whilst it completely makes sense that you want to contribute species records and learn via a community, iRecord is only really set up to do the former, and is intended to submit records of species that you have identified and is based on the UK recording system of having an "expert" verifier checking records. iNaturalist was set up in America with a completely different approach, of recording things and allowing AI or the community to help with the identifying and community agreement being the quality mark as it were. That is clearly a popular approach, and for some groups you are much more likely to get feedback than iRecord. There are lots of knowledgeable people that can chip in - some of the people giving feedback might be international experts, but it also means that something can become research grade if two inexperienced people who want to be helpful happen to agree on an ID, regardless of accurracy. Incidentally a hybrid approach was used on ISpot - anyone could add an ID to a record but you built up a reputation in certain groups, so IDs from people with a higher reputation carried more weight.
Regarding the categories, the Spider Recording Scheme are now encouraging people to use iRecord, however it will take a long while for them to go back and look at historical records. They have got their own recording form, and are starting to verify new records submitted using it. You are right about birds and fungi. For fungi, there are not many verifiers and it would be a thankless task, as often both iRecord and iNaturalist records won't have enough relevant data to enable proper verification (e.g. substrate, nearby trees, has a key been used or is it just based on the photo). For birds there are much more established platforms like BirdTrack and eBird generating large amounts of data so county recorders are reluctant to take on another platform.