JonathanWallace's picture

Other Organisms

A quick scan of the 'Other organisms' category of observations shows that a very hig proportion have no 'likely ID' assigned. This despite the fact that they have been identified and various people have agreed. For example there is an observation of a Peacock butterfly with a large number of agreements, many by regular contributors to the site who I know have a high level of expertese with invertebrates. None of them however have any reputation in 'other organisms' so their agreements count for nothing in confirming the id even though it is clear to all that it is indeed a peacock!
The other problem is that observations languishing in the 'other organisms' category will be less likely to get checked by people with knowledge of particular groups so again the likelihod of getting a confirmed ID.
For virtually all of the observations in this category it is obvious which category they should be in and so I suggest it would be useful if the ISpot staff could periodically reassign them to the correct category. This would result in an awful lot of unconfirmed IDs being confirmed.



JonathanWallace's picture

Any thoughts on this at iSpot

Any thoughts on this at iSpot HQ??

Jonathan Wallace

miked's picture

I did quite a lot of

I did quite a lot of reassigning a few months ago and tried to mention to the people who had put the wrong kinds of observations there that they need to go in the correct category and why.
We have thought several times about getting rid of the other organisms category but I do not think that is the solution as there are things that don't fit elsewhere so there does need to be this catchall category. It is a matter of finding a way of pursuading users to put their observation in the correct category and only as a last resort put it in 'other organisms' - perhaps if they think its a virus or bacteria or some other type of organism that does not fit in elsewhere.