Poll: Required Fields in Projects - Problem or No?
Hi all! A quick question. Since I use iNaturalist differently than everyone else, I realize my perception is different than that of others. However, I find required fields in projects REALLY annoying to the point that if a project has required fields i will rarely or never contribute to it. I was wondering if it's just a pet peeve I have that no one else shares, or if indeed they annoy other people. And if you don't use them, is it because you don't like required fields, or just because the feature isn't working right.
Thanks!
Comentarios
I don't mind them. This crowd-source data can be used to further science and help nature, so I actually like it. How do use iNat differently?
I like to add LOTS of observations and add them fast - because I am so obsessed with iNaturalist that I am trying to add things while doing other activities, such as being the passenger in a car, doing yardwork, etc. So I don't like things that pop up and create nuisances. i like fields in general, I often add fields to my observations, but i don't like when they are required to participate in a project.
Apparently I actually literally make more observations with the iPhone app than anyone else on the site. So my hope here is not to convince people that they shouldn't use required fields, but rather just to understand if I am the only one who doesn't like them. If that is true I shouldn't advise others to avoid them due to their annoyance (because my hope is for the site to work well for a lot of people not just me!). Thanks for your feedback!
Required fields don't annoy me so much as I am fairly indifferent to them. I rarely complete additional project fields, and if a project requires them, I often just don't add my observation. Agree with you on speed -- I like to casually and conveniently contribute, not to feel like it's work.
What I am more annoyed by are project fields that can be ascertained by the observation itself - e.g., what time was the observation made? male or female?
I like them, but i don't like them. I like them because they help the people who create the project for research. I agree with biohexx1 that they can help nature. Also, most of the projects I have joined with fields actually need them. So I am fine with that. I don't like the though because sometimes I don't have a lot of time to post observations so fields become a nuissance. But otherwise they're fine to me. I can understand your frustration though because like I too have been in your position.
Yeah... agreed that i don't contribute to projects with onerous fields, but I think that is something the project creators would want to know. Of course what is onerous to one person isn't to another. There's a really problematic project in one town in Vermont that requires you to enter the time of observation - which of course is a pointless field. For male/female at least I could see someone downloading the data and using the field, but why make it required when you can add it yourself?
I suppose the question is this: do you (as a project creator) want 1000 observations with the field filled out, or 5000 observations but only 2000 with the field filled out. (i am totally making up these numbers)
If they are important for the project's research, then fine by me. Speed isn't always best :) If you think a field is pointless, ask the curator of the project why they are collecting it. I have found that some projects just are not that well thought out and they may benefit from the conversation.
There are huge numbers of projects out there, some that seem redundant or unnecessary or even a security issue if people aren't careful with their geoprivacy. But... that's a whole other topic.
Thanks for your thoughts all!!
Hey Charlie, I am at about the same place as Muir: I don't fill them out or I don't add my observation. I don't really think about too much. My priorities are getting everything into iNaturalist, new and backlog, and then helping out with IDs. I kind of forget about adding things to projects. Remember that old feature where your obs were automatically filtered by project rules. There was a contributor version and maybe a project managar version. I stopped contributing to projects regularly when I couldn't use that tool.
Yeah, to be honest there are only a handful of projects I actually get excited about contributing to. For the most part, I am less interested in them in general. I am glad that my observations get auto-added to Vermont Atlas of Life because it was a pain to add all of them in the past.
FWIW, I try to discourage them as much as possible when advising people on setting up projects. My general standpoint is that just recording an observation is usually as much work as people want to put in, so if a project manager wants more information attached to an observation, either it's their responsibility to do that work, OR they need to do something extra to convince participants that the field is worth adding, more than than merely setting up a project and asking. That could take the form of adding identifications and feedback, particularly for taxa that are hard to ID, or it could be actively and regularly communicating how data in the project are being used. Very few projects on iNat actually do these things, sadly (some do, of course, some of them run by folks in this thread!). Most people seem to think that if they slap their logo somewhere on the site, citizen science will magically happen and they can tell their donors about it, when in reality it requires consistent community engagement, involvement in research question formulation and analysis, and all those other good things that characterize successful citizen science projects, online and offline. I.e. it takes work.
Anyway, grumble grumble projects grumble. Project managers have their own set of completely legit complaints too, I know.
There are a few projects that I add my observations to that I genuinely try to answer the required or requested additional fields (ASC roadkill -- the speed limits, for example), but for the most part, I ignore them as well. Supplemental questions like "temperature at time of observation" or "altitude of observation" can be generated by other means outside of the observer -- if the researcher really wants this data, he/she/they can reach out to the observers, I think.
Thanks! I've been filling out the associated soecies and interaction: fields when I can lately because i think that GLOBI project is neat.
This from Ken-ichi written above -
"Most people seem to think that if they slap their logo somewhere on the site, citizen science will magically happen and they can tell their donors about it, when in reality it requires consistent community engagement, involvement in research question formulation and analysis, and all those other good things that characterize successful citizen science projects, online and offline. I.e. it takes work."
-should be taped the screen of every single person that ever thought of running any sort of citizen science project, iNaturalist or not. I can't stress this enough after a couple decades of running cit. sci. projects. It takes work!
For me it depends on the project, like sambio said, if the info seems to be relevant to the project (e.g., ASC roadkill and speedlimits) than I'll put the time in to fill them out, granted that my opinion of relevancy is subjective. In general, required project fields discourage me from adding my observations to projects.
Agregar un comentario