Hi Ismael,

I use it, and know others who do, and the answer is the vague "it depends" - it depends on who is doing the identifications; and it depends on what you want to use the data for. For me, I've found users sometimes take superb photos of my group (mites) that I am working on; I've reached out to some users and worked together on identifications; I have "cleaned up" some taxa I know well; I have seen invasive species move through Australia thanks to users taking photos. There's plenty of like-minded nature lovers on it who really appreciate a scientific interest in their photos.

So it's useful, despite mites being one of the worst groups for identifications, with the AI suggested identification often being wrong, and most photos being understandably poor for proper identifications. If you work within those bounds, it's still a surprisingly useful resource (and fun!).

However, when you get a group of reliable experts identifying groups that can be done via photos, the data on the whole can become superb. Australian dragonflies are one such example. Vet the data yourself, then see if it can answer your questions. Also, if you've got expertise in a certain group, join up and lift the standards!

all the best, Owen

Dear Ismael,

I recently prepared a manuscript that involved investigating ecological niche modeling using data from iNaturalist. The reliability of occurrence data is indeed crucial for accurate ecological niche modeling. Our approach was to utilize all available data from the database while ensuring its accuracy through a thorough verification process. We had a taxonomist on our team who meticulously reviewed each photograph to confirm the identification accuracy. This double-checking process with a taxonomist was essential to ensure the credibility of the observations before incorporating them into our models.

Therefore, if experts can thoroughly review the photographs, the usability of iNaturalist data increases significantly.

With Regards,

Jhih-Rong