|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||4.73||1||(Noah)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
|Could Be||1.0||5.88||1||(Christian Schwarz)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
That’s not what’s happening here, Judi. Plenty of people (including me) continue to upload photos all throughout the season, from all the places we go… No need to go fearing false crises.
In the meantime, we also record distribution data, status data, add genetic data, observe phenological trends and ecological interactions – sometimes the data is associated with a photo, and sometimes it’s not. We’ve all agreed it’s nice when observations have photos, and much nicer when observations have specimens associated with them. It certainly makes them more useful for the most rigorous kinds of scientific question. However, it does not inherently disqualify them from being used to investigate other kinds of questions.
There are dramatic practical limitations that prevent people from taking photos and making vouchers for every one of their observations on Mushroom Observer. Space, time, money, curation, so on and so forth. This does not mean that they should be prevented from keeping track of the data they are contributing.
So – no need for anyone to get dramatic. Let people upload their data, and then be cautious when you decide what data you want to use for your research (JUST LIKE YOU ALWAYS SHOULD).
Want to read more?
a list of fungi that various people from around the world claim to have seen at a certain time and place, i.e., a website with no pictures. Why would anyone log on? Not to learn what a specific specimen looks like. Not to see the subtle and endless variety a species displays under different conditions. Not to ask a user to share their find for research. Not to learn from experts. Not to mentor novices. Not to discover something never identified before. Not to learn from one’s own mistakes. Not for any reason, I dare say, if MO were nothing but a list of unsubstantiated fungal sightings. What would be the mission, the purpose, or the value of such a site. I’m just wondering….
that’s spelled s-h-i-t, BTW, christian luv.
in good conscience, how can you argue for a data free obsie as having value? beyond me dudes.
but carry on. surely you’ll find someone, somewhere to agree with yur world view.
like ole Barnum said, a sucker is born every minute.
just think how many photos you could have put up with those “names only” in the time it took to write your outraged remarks here?
ah well, guess that it’s all about priorities. ta ta. other fish to fry.
self righteous x 10^100
fast forward fifty years into the future. you’d be surprised to see how fast time flies as you go over that 30’s hill. There goes your hair, your health, and whoops, forgot to save up for my old age!
and now, I am curious about what mushrooms were seen fifty years ago, because gosh the biological world is changing so fast, here today, gone today,
and look! I can search a wonderful database called MushroomObserver that shows not only names but often good photos and often even deeper data like descriptions, DNA, micro details, as well as dates and places. I can get real data in real time from careful collectors and documenters.
but here’s just a name. right, that’s real valuable.
Alan is Alan, who cares what his ranking is here on MO, or whether proposed MO changes will boost him or deflate him? I don’t live my life as a competition to Alan, and hopefully you don’t either. When he puts up a good obsie, I appreciate it. If he tends toward the competitive, well, maybe it’s in his genes.
Any obsie with good data, and a photo is a bare minimum, is a good obsie.
As long as he raises the bar for everyone, where’s the problem?
Lowering the bar, though, I do have a problem with that. You boys should know better. Or maybe this is all about building response potential for your upcoming book(s)?
Way to subvert a caring, sharing community for your own purposes, if so. Just sayin’.
if you make it one.
I consider image-less observations to be very valuable, and can vet the observations by poster, and get useful data from them.
The implemented marginal benefit would drop quickly as more images are added. A huge jump in credibility from 0 images to 1, a medium drop from 1 to 2, etc. Alan wouldn’t get much for adding that 16th pic. :P
It would have to address the ambiguity exemplified by “Could Be” being able to be used positively or negatively. Do more images → higher vote reliability → 27% gets boosted, or lowered?
I think this is a good way to draw attention to this ancient problem…
But my point stands – no need to incentivize adding ten exposures of the same set up, especially given recent image server troubles.
Interesting differences between MO and the other citizen science platforms I use:
iNaturalist allows you to see what other people are submitting, but it has a clear and explicit way of establishing research-grade observations (which MO does not have, and which this observation would not qualify for). But it also has a clear way for observers to opt-out of community votes – they still can keep track of their observations, but their name can’t be changed by the community. Note that an observation that has not being designated “Research Grade” doesn’t preclude its being used by researchers (based on their priorities, questions, and criteria).
eBird doesn’t allow you to monitor the entire flow of what people are submitting (not without great difficulty, anyway), and also restricts data quality control to a few “Regional Reviewers”, who are supported by a good automated filter based on a priori understanding of status and distribution.
The first would be easy for MO to implement. The second would not (without some serious funding). A hybrid method would also be possible to implement with some careful thought and planning.
we are grateful for feedback from more experienced others. Including observations like this. But each to his or her own.
Oh, and there is a specimen and photos of this collection, results will be published soon…
My suggestion wouldn’t affect users’ contribution scores… on the contrary, I think 10 points per image vs. 1 point per obs is a little extreme.
Alan Rockefeller would be #1 contributor on the site. Oh wait.
Debbie, whatever. I tried. Again. D’oh.
not like barrowsii is commonplace or completely understood. not every encounter needs a twenty minute set-up. lists are pretty meaningless without at the very least a photo back-up.
I don’t voucher every interesting thing that I come across either, esp. if the fb is not in pristine shape, or it is not a species that particularly interests me. But w/out a photo, it is pretty much a meaningless obsie, that gives no one any sort of good info.
Why bother to even put it up here?
Yup, we have had this conversation before, and no doubt will again. I can tell you a really quick way to end it, though. Can you guess?
Here’s to more, not less data in these “obsies.”
… But I was focused on other things, many of which were vouchered:
I think your advice on observation 119578 is particularly useful. “Go on ahead and call it whatever you think is most likely.”
Since I see no good reason to throw away data (even it is approximate, and thus not suitable for some kinds of research), I did just that.
But we’ve had this conversation before…
to put up a meaningful, data-ful obsie here.
in this case, less is not more.
of lots of species. Until we can talk about them a bit more concretely than “they’re out there”, I think it’s more useful to use our current best name for such orange-capped, Populus-associated, Rocky-Mountain grisettes.
no ID. cryptic forms are out there.
who knows what you saw?
Created: 2014-09-03 16:17:20 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2015-09-02 15:00:14 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 169 times, last viewed: 2016-10-25 04:57:09 CDT (-0400)