gardener's picture

Better moderating needed

If iSpot is to provide a valid tool for the accurate identification of species much better moderating of the linked images that appear below posts with a similar title is needed.

I've just had to add an identification of 'Lichen, unidentified' to remove the photograph below from those that were showing on another 'Parmelia' observation.

When part of iSpot's funding is presumably linked to its role in the Open University's 'Neighbourhood Nature' course I feel that iSpot has a responsibility to ensure greater accuracy of linked images.



Ray Turner's picture

Peer Review

gardner the iSpot system has worked beautifully in this case and you have played your part in it. Part of the iSpot remit is to demonstrate how accurate identifications arise through peer review, sometimes (as in your example) accuracy requires a ‘backward’ step.



gardener's picture

Clarification - better filtering

I think I should clarify the point I was trying to make in this (and my related thread in Fungi and Lichens).

I should have said that better filtering of images is needed, rather than better moderating.

Perhaps it would be possible for the iSpot team to add a filter to the images shown under 'Other Observations' so only those that have received a high level of agreement are shown?

Fenwickfield's picture

No agreements

Some of these other observations have no agreements on them.I have looked at some were I personally have added an observation which at the time I thought was right and no one has agreed on it but it is still in the other observation section.


Martincito's picture

I agree with Ray that it is

I agree with Ray that it is the responsibility of all iSpotters (and particularly the more experienced users) to overrule any obvious misidentifications by adding their own revisions. I'm a relative novice and greatly appreciate new IDs being added and comments from others, especially when they help me get a better understanding by correcting my numerous errors.