Archivos de diario de diciembre 2018

27 de diciembre de 2018

19. Places of Interest location name repeatedly, there is a feature in iNat which lets you 'pin' that location to the top of your screen for later use.

Places of Interest

So, just an FYI: if you have a location that you use often for observations and you don't want to keep having to type in the location name repeatedly, there is a feature in iNat which lets you 'pin' that location to the top of your screen for later use.

It's possible to change geoprivacy for many observations at once, but I agree it's hard to find. I've highlighted it with pink ovals in the screen shots below.

Screen Shot 2018-12-11 at 11.34.27 AM.png

Then once you open "more fields", change the geoprivacy selection and click "apply geoprivacy" to the observations you've selected below.!topic/inaturalist/2xDVC2W-QVE
for what it's worth the semi-depreciated guides on iNat could work as a form of feature based key. See for instance where you can turn on and off features like leaf type and habitat type.

To volunteer as a beta tester, visit

ploying us on staff, the National Geographic Society for financial and promotional support, the Moore Foundation for financial support, Microsoft for donating servers and other infrastructure, and many other companies for providing free services to our cause, including Google, Slack, New Relic, and others. Running a global platform like iNatural

ARD live (indien de rechten het toelaten)
Live tv VRT
NDR HD live
WDR HD live (indien de rechten het toelaten)
ZDF live (indien de rechten het toelaten)

Bij naturgucker zijn de fotos 10MP. Enig idee hoe ze dat doen ? Ik weet wel dat ze elke seconde 60 fotos op vragen om de response (cache) een beetje actief te houden ,de fotos in de cache te houden. De 1 MP fotos van vallen dan toch wat tegen ? (1. Ga naar$/, 2. Zoek een fotos, bijv van Madeira,

  1. Rechtermuisknop URL…/32430079898_d48b711470_b.j… 4. Pak het Photo ID uit de link en volg…/my-priceless-flickr-tip-how-to-find-…/
  2. Plak dit weer in
  3. Je komt dan weer op


66. Interactions, Relaties, Verbondheid

more details here: here are many ways. Have a look at

Now a lot depends on your philosophy.

For instance you can just add an interaction (one of the many fields): and name the other side of the interaction.
But that assumes that you know the other organism, and that if you have it wrong you will fix it, and that if the name changes taxonomically, then you will fix it.


My philosophy is that you put both as observations and then link them: that way the community takes care of the identifications, and the link will remain no matter what.
If you follow my philosophy look at:

How can we get this higher up the “desired” list of features?
Both the New Zealanders and southern Africans have projects dealing with this.
Ours is visible at 4

Basically, we record only the active interaction (i.e. “a eats b”, not “b is eaten by a” - the latter just being the reciprocal of the first), although user pressure has resulted in us adding a passive field for the reciprocal observation, given that observations fields link only one way, so that these observations do not display their hosts) as:

Visiting flowers: 6
Eating: 5
Parasitizing: 1
Attached to:
Carrying: 1
Associated with:
& the passive

Note that in each case the field value is the url of the interacting observation. Unfortunately we cannot use this is a query to summarize the interactions.
We can ask
“What flowers does the Cape Sugarbird Visit?” - 3
but we will only see the bird, and not the flowers, even though all the urls to the flowers are in the field - see: 2.

In over 5 years of using this “set” of interactions, we have never had a request to add additional interactions (e.g. Eating = preys on = killing to eat - i.e. “killing for fun” has not cropped up), although it would be nice to have a hierarchical dictionary of interactions (e.g. visiting a flower > pollinating a flower (> for nectar, pollen, oil, gum)/robbing a flower/, etc

I’m happy to leave the test=interactions thing available, I’m just not going to make it visible by default or integrate it into the UI. I don’t think we need to ice this topic, as I think the title sums up what we want pretty well. Personally, I think the Feature Requests category is a way to gauge what kinds of things people are interested in, and not necessarily specific implementation plans, so it’s valuable to me to know how many people chose to upvote this. In fact, I will spend one of my votes on it right now

plant Lantana camara apparently “visits flowers of” 46 species of insects, rather than the other way around 13). Is it a functionality you can leave available, or are there reasons not to do so?

We investigated this when we redesigned the taxon page in 2016 (yikes, that was a while ago). I just made it so you can see what we did by appending test=interactions to any taxon page URL, and I’ll use examples to explain why we didn’t develop this any further.

The big problem looming over this whole feature is that observation fields are a bad way to model interactions. Since they represent a totally uncontrolled vocabulary, they’re rife with synonymous fields, so it’s hard interpret situations where, for example, there are both eats and preys on interactions, e.g. 28. What’s the difference? Why are both supported?

Another problem is that using observation fields to model interactions means that one of the two taxa in the interaction is not subject to crowdsourced identification, so anyone can say that oaks eat humans and there’s nothing the community can do to correct that. As an example, here’s a butterfly that supposedly eats itself: 16. It doesn’t, this is just due to an erroneously added observation field. Site curators could just delete this field, but that’s generally not how we like to perform quality control at iNat.

On top of that, we really wanted to incorporate data from GLoBI 12, since we like them and we think it’s cool that they incorporate iNat interaction data, but mapping taxonomies and field semantics proved a hassle, and again it presents the problem of data that the iNat community can’t correct if they find errors.

What we’d like to do is to make a new feature for interactions where an interaction is a relationship between two observations with clear and controlled semantics (to the extent that that’s possible). So instead adding an obs field that says an obs of an oak represents that oak eating a human, you would create an interaction and have to choose two observations, one of an oak and another of a human, and choose “eating” from a menu of interaction types where “eating” means “taxon A is putting all or part of taxon B inside its body for the purpose of personal metabolism” or something. Other users could then vote on whether that was the correct interaction type, and the two observations could be independently identified. We could try and pre-populate this new kind of data with observation fields, or at least make a tool that helps people review their own interaction obs fields to make new-style interactions out of them. That’s a lot more work, though, and it hasn’t really been a priority, so we haven’t gotten around to it.

Anyway, that’s a long way of saying that I agree this would be cool, but doing it right will take considerable effo

Ingresado el 27 de diciembre de 2018 por ahospers ahospers | 2 comentarios | Deja un comentario