What to do when you can&#39;t tell what the animal is?

enter image description here
How to find what kind of animal is brown with black tail and ridge hair (more not visible, too close)

Posted December 11, 2012 8:13 PM

by OkieStars

If I can see a herd of 20 or more animals moving in the far distance, too far away to even tell if they are horse-like or cat-like, I hate to check "Nothing Here." It's like throwing away good data.

Posted December 11, 2012 8:17 PM

by aethervox

I think that having an option to check 'All animals far away' next to the 'Nothing here' button might help. At least it could flag photos that experienced researches might want to check. Just a thought.

Posted December 11, 2012 8:22 PM

by kosmala scientist

Janet Jaguar: That brown animal is a wildebeest. Its back sloping down from the shoulders to the rump is one way to tell. Plus there aren't any other large all-brown antelope in the list, except for buffalo. Buffalo are a lot broader.

Posted December 11, 2012 8:26 PM

There are 2 kinds of photos that have definite animal captures that require some kind of "I don't know" button to click: too close and too far.

My current example of too close - it is almost certainly some kind of brown deer/antelope, but it's not like there are any identifying marks visible. 😃

enter image description here

Posted December 11, 2012 8:32 PM

by mareastra

What should we do when the animal is so close to the camera there is no way to tell what it is? I've had two in a row now where there was most definitely an animal right next to the camera, but all I could see was brown fur with no markings. One had a very blurry thing that I think was an ear, so it might be an antelope, but there was no way of telling what kind.

Posted December 11, 2012 8:38 PM

by Wolbo

Just signed up and started with a couple. Great project! Agree with others that a "Just can't tell' option would be very useful to distinguish from 'Nothing here'. Also a zoom option would be very handy, like e.g. ebay has, to identify animals in the distance. Hope these improvements can be incorporated. I'm now looking at a large collection of animals in the distance and without a zoom option or an option to enlarge the photo there's simply no way to identify most of them.

Posted December 11, 2012 8:56 PM

by Wolbo

Here's the picture. Couple of zebras but the rest....?

enter image description here

Posted December 11, 2012 8:57 PM

by kosmala scientist

For animals that are too close: do take your best guess. Your answer will be combined with those of others, so that we'll be able to tell from the scatter of answers that a particular animal was difficult to identify. For animals that are in the distance: if you have any characteristics that can help you identify them, the give your best guess. If animals are so far away that wouldn't even be sure they are animals (as opposed to rocks), except that they move, then you can ignore them. For Wolbo's image, I can tell that some of those far away animals are likely also zebra. But others are indistinguishable from rocks. I'd probably have recorded this image as "zebra 11-50".

Posted December 11, 2012 9:09 PM

by nefibach

Another vote for zoom, both on the photo we're trying to classify, but also on the animals that we're choosing from, some of which are too small to be clear.

And another vote for a "something here but I can't tell what it is" button. I had one that was just a pair of legs, and impossible to tell whose legs they might be beyond "antelope type thing". I just really dislike making a random guess, and would just rather be able to tag at a higher level than having to pick a species, or be able to just say "mammal" and leave it at that.

Posted December 11, 2012 9:12 PM

by macneo

I don't know if they can actually put any zoom, it all depends on the resolution of the cameras they're using. I suppose they're not taking 18mp pictures, they would fill up the memory too quickly. Maybe they're simple securitycam-grade cameras and you wouldn't gain anything by zooming in.

Posted December 11, 2012 9:15 PM

by Wolbo

kosmala: that was exactly how I identified it. It's rewarding to know that after an hour I'm already on the level of a scientist... 😃

BTW, how do you 'ignore' a photo, i.e. how do you skip it and move to the next one?

Posted December 11, 2012 9:24 PM

by sari_everna

I agree that a zoom function would be useful, both for verifying number as well as kind. And I've run into a photo with a very dark background, clearly a night shot, and I can see eyes, but I can't be sure whose they are. I suspect hyena from a slightly lighter area that I think is its big ear, but it's hard to be sure and I'd hate to have to resort to "nothing here" with similar images.

Posted December 11, 2012 9:28 PM

by tewen

Plenty of magnifiers available and most o/s's offer them. I am using magnifier in Win 7 on a second monitor.
That being said, a zoom function would be nice as well as more general classifications with a 'Can't tell' option.

Really enjoying myself though 😄

Posted December 11, 2012 9:36 PM

by Wolbo

Also having a whale of a time. And it's by far the cheapest safari I've ever been on. 😃

Posted December 11, 2012 9:45 PM

by RobinGYoung

To "ignore" a pic, I've just been exiting and re-entering rather than clicking on "Nothing Here" - is there a better way?

I've also been lowering my screen resolution in Windows as an easy way to make the pictures look a bit bigger. Doubtful if it makes much difference though...

Posted December 11, 2012 9:46 PM

Yes, I also want to be able to say "antelope" when that's all I can say.
At present, I'm coding it 'nothing there' because I'd be lying to guess anything else.
Please add the function to give a category, not a specific animal. Or add a place to note uncertaintly - a questionmark?.This would be handy if others could search by questionmark and see if they can be more specific.

Posted December 11, 2012 9:54 PM

by aliburchard scientist, translator

Even if you aren't sure exactly which antelope yo're looking at, just give it your best guess. Since we'll be combining your answers with those of other users, an incorrectly identified antelope is actually more helpful for us than a "nothing here" ID.

Posted December 11, 2012 9:58 PM

by SarahMay1

I agree about zoom, but more so a certainty measure, or indeed something to say that there's an animal there but can't tell (I saw the tip of a paw, can't tell more)

Posted December 11, 2012 10:21 PM

by angostura

Rather than the system forcing the user to guess, surely it makes sense to let the user actually state when they are unsure about something so that their answers can be weighted differently

For example, I've had a couple of shots where I only have a tiny bit of rump of an animal in shot. I know that it is a mammal, I know that it has spots.

Is it a hyena or a cheetah? Not a clue - really, impossible to tell. Is it at rest or eating? Don't know - I know it's not moving.

It seems daft to weight my guess that it is a hyena, equally to that of an with an expert who is sure that it is a cheetah. Surely a "That's as close as I can get" button as an alternative to "identify" would let people at least provide some data without being scared off.

Posted December 11, 2012 10:26 PM

by dearnold

A zoom function is really required for this task. Adjusting contrast would be nice on some, but hardly as important as being able to zoom in.

Posted December 11, 2012 10:35 PM

by valrea

I agree that sometime you can't even make a guess ( for example i just had a tail in the corner of a dark photo). A "animal not identifiable" option would be sensible.

Posted December 11, 2012 11:09 PM

by WimVo

Like what if all you can see is a wagging tail in front of the camera ?

I did try with the search function but with that being all you can see, it's hard to tell right now. Maybe once I see the whole beast somewhere else I'll be able to identify the tail.

It could even be a misinterpreted plant wagging instead of a tail. How much of an animal does one need to see for it to count as one, for all I know you might see two paws without knowing for sure if they both belong to the same animal. Does that mean you answer 2, 1, or 0 ?

Posted December 11, 2012 11:28 PM

by flexkeys

Ctrl + on num pad will give you zoom. I wish there was a flag this photo because I swear I saw a ghost in a night shot..lol

Posted December 11, 2012 11:46 PM

by Markus66

One function could be just 'next image' when you can't make out what the animal is! Also a zoom (close-up) function could be helpfull in some cases!

Posted December 11, 2012 11:55 PM

by anniemay

I agree that there should definitely be a Don't Know or Unclear button. When I can't identify an animal reliably I am picking Nothing There, but that is a lie and it doesn't make me feel good to pick it.

Posted December 12, 2012 12:14 AM

by rajkalex

I agree with many of the comments here. I just don't feel right about "just guessing" when I really have no clue what I'm looking at. Then again, I don't want to select "nothing there". I understand that guesses are screened, which is fine if I can make a somewhat educated guess, but it makes me uncomfortable if I'm just (basically) randomly picking an animal so that I can move on. Maybe you could add a "next image" button with a pop-up or other message discouraging it's overuse. Regardless, this is a really neat project or I wouldn't be commenting at all. Great work!

Posted December 12, 2012 12:51 AM

by nannyjay

when you recognise a bird but there is no option to tick what to do then? On the last photo there are what looks like a vulture standing under a tree and some type of huge crow with an orange band across its beak in the tree.

How do I answer this one as there is no option for 'vulture'

Posted December 12, 2012 12:54 AM

by ponnuki

@nannyjay: Bird (other)

Posted December 12, 2012 1:08 AM

by kosmala scientist

We understand that it can be frustrating to have to guess at difficult images. But truly this is what makes our data come out best. We've found that people tend to guess correctly on images that are difficult, but not impossible. So trust your gut on the hard ones.

For images that are literally impossible, when we pool many peoples' answers, we can tell that really hard images were, for example, antelopes -- or just "mammal" -- based on the scatter of answers.

I'll do a blog post on this sometime soon so you can see what happens. I had similar frustrations when I helped with other Zooniverse projects, but when I saw how the data came out, I understood why it works so well this way.

Posted December 12, 2012 1:59 AM

by vjb

Thank you Kosmala. When we guess, we are saying there is something of interest. If we have the option of "don't know", human nature will tend to go to it more often than is useful. Then scientists will be looking at pictures instead of analyzing data.
I look forward to your blog post. Also, what plans are there for user stats? I'd love to know how many pictures I've classified and how many I marked "nothing there".

Posted December 12, 2012 2:26 AM

by amydove

I agree - I got one that was just a very blurry nose. No way for me to tell!

Posted December 12, 2012 3:05 AM

by nhsia

For the ones where there is an animal that is really close to the camera and you can't really guess what it is other than an animal, I would suggest having buttons for choices like "ear," "paw," "legs," or "tail" -- that way it's not like saying "nothing there" but also, you're not saying "GIRAFFE!" when you have no idea what it is.

Posted December 12, 2012 3:47 AM

by Veegee

whoa, I have an animal right up next to the camera, can just see small part of the backend, and it has a tail like a horse, long, dark,
lots of hair, tail. Med brown in coat color, can't tell what the heck it is because that kind of tail isn't listed. Any tours on
horseback go thru the area? Don't know what to mark it as any guess thru the ID system come up "there is nothing to match this"

Posted December 12, 2012 7:44 AM

by fitzhugh1

A couple of requests:
Some option other than "nothing here" to use when you really can't tell. I did read the reply above that suggested finding something that seems to fit, but sometimes I just can't make out what it is. How about a button that says "Unsure" or even an optional ranking of how sure you are of the identification?

Make it so we don't have to read the little blurb about how helpful this is after each capture.

Add an option to switch right to the other animal it is "often confused with" without having to hit cancel and start over.

Thanks!

Posted December 12, 2012 7:52 AM

http://www.snapshotserengeti.org/subjects/standard/50c216558a607540b9050cdf_0.jpg

Add this, what do you do when the animal is clear but apparently not on the list? Maybe I'm just being slow in finding it.
Puzzle Picture:
enter image description here

When I ask for cow/horse, I get wildebeest and big antelopes, plus buffalo and waterbuck. So how do I list this?

enter image description here

Posted December 12, 2012 8:04 AM

by smj

Suggest add "unidentified animal" with an added panel for reason: "too far", "too near", "too dark", "too little of animal showing". "unidentified animal" could use the present options regarding whether moving, at rest etc. But those should have added for all purposes "can't tell". The "too dark" option would cover a single shot I just looked at where only grass up close was illuminated, but in the dark beyond there was a tiny perfect dot almost definitely an eye reflecting light. While this doesn't help the identification database, such an identification would add to a grosser activity database, which could be useful if there were other nearby identified sightings of animals that are up and around at night.

Posted December 12, 2012 11:01 AM

by Robcheerio

I saw something that looked like a goat or a llama, but it was just the top of it's head at the bottom of the shot so very hard to identify. Goat and Llama are not in the list but could they possibly exist as pets of natives?

Posted December 12, 2012 12:27 PM

by Robcheerio

Also in the dark frames sometimes all you can see is the flash reflected in the animal's eye but it is too far to make out what it is - if it's part of a group is it ok to count it (the eye) as one of the same animal?

Posted December 12, 2012 12:31 PM

by morphics

An unidentified animal option as smj suggests would be perfect, I've had a few animals that have been too close, or there's only part visible. For example, I've just had an image where I could just see an ear; perhaps an expert could identify the animal, but I couldn't even start to guess.

Posted December 12, 2012 1:22 PM

by aliburchard scientist, translator

@JanetJaguar -- you've got 2 buffalo photos and a waterbuck photo there. The buffalo in the first photo is young, so its horns are still a little straight. The shaggy critter in your last photo is a waterbuck -- they always look out of place in the hot Serengeti.

Posted December 12, 2012 2:02 PM

by aliburchard scientist, translator

@Robcheerio -- you probably saw a small antelope. The cameras are set up pretty deep inside the park, where there aren't any livestock...I also suspect a goat wouldn't last very long in Serengeti 😃

Posted December 12, 2012 2:10 PM

by aliburchard scientist, translator

@Robcheerio - for night animals. If you say, see a wildebeest in the dim light of the flash, and then a handful of glowing eyes behind it, it's a pretty good guess that those are more wildes. For most herd animals that's true. So you can go ahead and say they are the same animal.

Posted December 12, 2012 2:10 PM

by AowlanCrystal moderator

Janet Jaguar did you/anyone else notice the ox-pecker on the nose of the Buffalo in your 2nd image??

Posted December 12, 2012 2:29 PM

by AowlanCrystal moderator

I think not only a zoom function, but also needs a option to draw a circle or square about a small or an extremely camoflaged critter, spot the bird in this image (if it copied properly) yes? no? when you run the sequence a little flying spot appears, its about a thumb print in from the left side, and just over a third of the way down,is a bird, what species? unknown, so would click bird (other) in this case. cause my hubby couldn't see it until i pointed it out.

also what if we see an insect/bug?, or do you not what these counted if seen?

Posted December 12, 2012 2:57 PM

by AowlanCrystal moderator

http://www.snapshotserengeti.org/subjects/standard/50c216558a607540b9050cdf_0.jpg

I think not only a zoom function, but also needs a option to draw a circle or square about a small or an extremely camoflaged critter, spot the bird in this image (if it copied properly) yes? no? when you run the sequence a little flying spot appears, its about a thumb print in from the left side, and just over a third of the way down,is a bird, what species? unknown, so would click bird (other) in this case. cause my hubby couldn't see it until i pointed it out.

also what if we see an insect/bug?, or do you not what these counted if seen?

Posted December 12, 2012 3:00 PM

by AowlanCrystal moderator

ooops sorry not sure how i posted that twice

Posted December 12, 2012 3:01 PM

Thanks all, young or female buffalo it is. There really needs to be that "unknown" option, with or without choices.

Posted December 12, 2012 3:23 PM

A new question, same picture.

There are 3 more animals in my puzzle picture, none showing great detail so I just assume they are also buffalo. My key animal is moving (walking), 2 of the others are just standing, and the third is on the ground resting. Do I click all 3 buttons for a count of 4, or do I enter a count of 1 moving, 2 standing and 1 resting?

Posted December 12, 2012 3:26 PM

by AowlanCrystal moderator

in the first picture as you say there is the key animal walking a young buffalo, behind it is at least 2 more that are stood, to the left of the 2 standing behind the main charactor, is one laying and one stood behind the one laying, then, to the right of the big one, behind the tree is one hiding!

As for your other questions when I did some without logging in to practice cause of the problems with not being about to see the next image when logged in, but it worked when logged out, I clicked the number of animals i saw of that type ie 5 buffalo then would click moving, resting and standing, if thats what they were doing cause you can click more than one option.

Posted December 12, 2012 5:46 PM

by kristenmcdaniel

I've had a few where there's an animal so close that it's just been my best guess. My favorite was one shot where there was nothing but a paw of a cat. 😃

Posted December 12, 2012 5:51 PM

by AowlanCrystal moderator

Janet Jaguar There could also be 1 more! making 7 in total over to the right side of the multi buffalo photo, the little brown blob.

Posted December 12, 2012 6:01 PM

by owler

Another vote for zoom. There's been a few where I wasn't sure if I was seeing an animal or a rock - copied them into photo editor and zoomed in, found 4 elephants in one of them. Also, some of the example pictures are dark or from angles that don't show the characteristics I'm trying to match, so it's hard to make the comparison. And while we're at it, I don't really have a problem with guessing, but I would like options for things like "antelope, unknown" and "I can't tell if that's a log or a reclining cat".

Posted December 12, 2012 6:49 PM

by AowlanCrystal moderator

sorted a Zoom solution if you use Mozilla Firefox goto the View tab in the tool bar that has File- edit- view- history- bookmark- etc.. then click zoom in 3 or 4 times you get a bigger picture to view, this is for firefox users, but I'm sure others like IE, chrome have "zoom in" on webpage options. in FF I haven't had to keep doing it each time either. hope this helps

Posted December 12, 2012 7:09 PM

by chameleon2065

zoom would be good, but i think a defiantly a "something" button would be good even if its a "something" button then option to guess or "not so sure" then best guess..

Posted December 12, 2012 8:49 PM

by chameleon2065

zoom you can also shift/+ or back out shift/-

Posted December 12, 2012 8:53 PM

by chameleon2065

Sorry correction it is ctrl/+ to zoom..

Posted December 12, 2012 9:02 PM

I recognize an animal, but can't put a name on it. When I look in classification, I cannot find anything matching it. It is my first image for crying out loud. Is it always this way?

Posted December 12, 2012 10:40 PM

oh, and now, it has dropped back to the first training pic and wont let me to back to the ID pic. If it is going to be so much of a pain, who needs it?

Posted December 12, 2012 10:45 PM

by anna_craven

There should be a 'pass' option for dark or indistinct photos which have a single vague greyish shape in a corner or on an edge with no distinguishing features, where the time taken to decide on a questionable identification is hardly justified and the scientific usefulness is debatable.

Posted December 12, 2012 11:14 PM

by DJ_59

Assuming these images are all actually much higher resolution than what we see, would it be possible to give us one-click access to larger versions of them? My eyes are not great, and I've had to just close my eyes and click on something so I could move on to the next image. It's not my best guess because I can't make any guess. If I could see a shot 4 times that size I could identify the animal. Also, I'm not sure why, but I can't even expand the pictures with iPad. No re-sizing ability, which, for me, makes it impossible to do any work. Is that something that can be addressed? Sorry for the laundry list (this isn't all of it, though), but these are important ones.

Posted December 12, 2012 11:21 PM

by Jwb52z

I found one that I don't quite know how to identify because it tells me that with my choices, there are no animals to display with the filters. All you see is the back half of the animal just below the shoulders. It's got a long tail and it's stocky with a solid coat. None of the 3 images of the cpature show anything close to the head.

Posted December 12, 2012 11:19 PM

by ecoacres

yes please give us a way to indicate animals or a herd too far to tell what they are but clearly moved. this is a wonderful project. thank you so much. eco acres

Posted December 13, 2012 1:12 AM

by Steven-Black

Need a "skip" option for those of us who aren't sure, but there may be something there to the trained eye.

Posted December 13, 2012 3:57 AM

by tvoller

I'm not even sure what that thing in front of the camera might belong to. If forced, I'll just make something up or indicate that there is no animal in the frame. But it would be preferable to be able to click "can't identify" or "unknown"

Posted December 13, 2012 4:36 AM

by Oozyzoozy

What if you just see a pair of eyes, a fair way away. Can't gauge it's size, or color but it's definitely a moving animal...?

I know it's a big job but have the creators of this application worked through it watching users unfamiliar with the subject and noting problems they may have so they can modify the app? For a start the tutorial asks learners to select animals (antelope/deer) that are not on the looks like list... Have you tried it?

This project could be a lot of fun but needs a bit more work on the classifying logic to remove weird cases or provide answers for them... Cheers.

Posted December 13, 2012 6:55 AM

Every browser has a zoom feature, including finger swipes on touch pads. Keying CONTROL-PlusKey always works. I'm thinking IPads would have that also somehow.

Contrast adjust as a feature would indeed be nice.

Posted December 13, 2012 10:45 AM

by myrddrr

I agree with the majority here, bigger pictures are easier to deal with, but zooming/unzooming on every picture gets tedious. How about a one-click to full screen option?

Posted December 13, 2012 10:52 AM

by sillymoo

I so agree with sheilasmail!

Posted December 13, 2012 12:20 PM

by phraps

It needs an "I Don't Know" option.

Posted December 13, 2012 12:32 PM

by rossgk

Zoom in impractical when there isn't much info. Most computers can zoom an image. Control-scroll will do it on the image in the browser usually. Mac users have the awesome control-scroll that zooms the whole screen. Great for close-ups. (Agree a something-here-but-can't-say-what button would be good added value, without saying "nothing here")

Posted December 13, 2012 2:50 PM

by aliburchard scientist, translator

We understand that it can be frustrating to have to guess at difficult images. But truly this is what makes our data come out best. We've found that people tend to guess correctly on images that are difficult, but not impossible. So trust your gut on the hard ones.

For images that are literally impossible, when we pool many peoples' answers, we can tell that really hard images were, for example, antelopes -- or just "mammal" -- based on the scatter of answers.

Kosmala will do a blog post on this sometime soon so you can see what happens. We had similar frustrations when helping with other Zooniverse projects, but when we saw how the data came out, we understood why it works so well this way.

Posted December 13, 2012 3:45 PM

by delete_c1052079

For dark pictures, drag the picture to your desktop, then open it in a program like Paint.NET. Use the "Adjustments" menu, and choose "Brightness/Contrast." It won't give you much color, but you'll be surprised what appears in the darkness. Doing this, I just found a hippo!

Posted December 13, 2012 6:34 PM

by nmb1blonde

I agree that we need a "something is there but I can't identify" button. Until we get it, I will identify any picture that has an animal that I cannot identify as "elephant". You will clearly be able to see that the picture does not have an elephant in it. I think this is a better solution then saying "nothing there" when in fact, something is there.

Posted December 13, 2012 10:43 PM

by sardo

definitely need a "next slide" option without having to guess

Posted December 14, 2012 1:53 AM

by kiliclimber

Maybe I'm cheating. I copy into Irfanview and doctor it up, zoom, etc. if I think it will help.

Posted December 14, 2012 2:36 AM

Thanks Ali... this is really useful.. it would be good to pin an explanation like this at the top of the Frequent Questions board.

Posted December 14, 2012 4:41 AM

by chandsone

there should be a "can't tell' button for when it's impossible to guess

Posted December 14, 2012 4:42 AM

I use control +/- a lot, but that usually doesnt help because there are just so many pixels. I find it really annoying to use the nothing in pic when I know there is something, but it is just little more than a shadow with an eyespot. We really do need a "something there, but unidentifiable" button or choice. I also often feel a strong urge to leave a short comment with a given pic, but am sure that would be too difficult for the sorting program to deal with as it calls for individual attention.

Posted December 14, 2012 5:52 AM

Another thing. I have to believe there are more than three species of birds in Africa. How about buzzard/vulture, turkey, hawk, flocking birds, as catagories?

Posted December 14, 2012 6:01 AM

Is there a counter that can tell us how many images we have inspected and/or how many we have identified?
While I got off to a rough start getting from the tutorial to ident and still have to get around tutorial every time I start, this is getting to be a really fun passtime.

Posted December 14, 2012 6:06 AM

by aliburchard scientist, translator

The zooniverse team is working on a counter -- they'll keep the community updated on progress for that.

Posted December 14, 2012 1:59 PM

by Smartwombat

O an iPad here, the Zoom function is definitely needed.
As are basic image processing features for exposure adjustment, shift brightness/contrast.
Running these through an image processing tools and doing auto adjust might help.
But ZOOM is what we need most urgently, perhaps an iPad app as well as the website?

Posted December 14, 2012 7:07 PM

by dodone

Kosmia: I may not be a scientist, but my conscience won't let me guess. I'm sure there are many participants who are similarly troubled. If there was a 'not sure' and or a 'don't know' button this would help. You would soon see the captures that are flags as such by the majority of us amateur judges and it would take just a second or two for one of you real scientists to pull our the capture and cast you expert eyes over it. Lets work as a team..

Posted December 14, 2012 8:40 PM

http://blog.snapshotserengeti.org/2012/12/14/we-need-an-i-dont-know-button/

They use the number of different names occurring as a flag. I agreed with you dodone, until I read this:

Posted December 15, 2012 1:10 AM

by biminibob

Yes, it does seem a "don't know button" is essential, until you read the article JJ links to. Very clever. Just do your best is the basic message, even if you think you'r having a 10% chance of success.

Posted December 15, 2012 10:45 AM

by manasponge

I agree zoom is needed and more choices..

Posted December 15, 2012 1:48 PM

by kaymahonsbcglobal.net

i'd like a feature where you could magnify the subject

Posted December 15, 2012 5:46 PM

by LydiaBosley

I got a magnifying glass out and that helps with some of the images! Identified a Thompson's Gazelle which I thought at first could have been a gemsbock or a kory bustard (could only see a dark stripe at first!)

Posted December 15, 2012 5:57 PM

by xairbusdriver

On a newer version of an iPad, check the Settings->General->Zoom function. It's mainly a three-finger tap method. Just remember that zooming a bad/blurry/far distant image won't really help. I suspect the images are already at ~96dpi and you don't get more pixels by 'zooming.'

However, I would really appreciate having a "best guess" option so the guess is really counted as that and not just a 'bad' one! LOL! A second choice would be a "Skip" function. If you start to see a majority of an image's tags as "Skipped," it might be good to eliminate or just move it to the "For Expert Eyes Only" group. 😉

My biggest complaint is the less-than-optimum mounting of some cameras. They need to be high enough above vegetation that the wind-blown grass doesn't trip the shutter! 😉 Maybe the judicious use of a 'weed eater' would help? LOL!

Still, this is, by far, the most interesting of all the Zooniverse projects! As someone said, it's the cheapest Safari you can find! Thanks for letting us help!

Posted December 15, 2012 10:04 PM

by elviseno

"next" button should be added. Not everything can be identifiable.
The site is sincerely awful. Once you refreshed it logged you out.

Posted December 16, 2012 8:33 AM

by Kailo.B

You can zoom IN by holding Ctrl and + to zoom IN
You can zoom OUT by holding Ctrl and - to zoom OUT

Posted December 16, 2012 6:44 PM

My biggest complaint is the less-than-optimum mounting of some
cameras. They need to be high enough above vegetation that the
wind-blown grass doesn't trip the shutter! 😉 Maybe the judicious use
of a 'weed eater' would help? LOL!

They aren't mounted on purpose that low, I caught one of the perpetrators in the act today. I posted the below in another thread. 😃

I caught one of the camera-use-destroyers in action:

It had NOT been buried in grass by the camera setters. ;D

Posted December 17, 2012 2:18 AM

by aliburchard scientist, translator

Yep, we certainly don't intentionally place cameras in the grass. Cameras are placed just above person knee-height so that they catch both medium and large carnivores. Any higher than that, and they will miss a leopard that walks too close to the tree! We do spend a lot of time cutting grass when we check cams -- but it takes us about 8 weeks to do the whole circuit, and grass grows really fast in the wet season.

Posted December 17, 2012 3:23 AM

by Keala

I've seen captures of the workers out with the machetes to cut the grass.

Posted December 17, 2012 5:17 AM

by Jwb52z

Would it not be simpler to basically completely remove the grass around a camera for a couple of feet?

Posted December 17, 2012 4:46 PM

by pjc

my example of too close:
http://talk.snapshotserengeti.org/#/subjects/ASG00078os

Posted December 17, 2012 8:33 PM

by rspears12

I agree a too dark to tell or place to leave a comment would be nice. Zoom would be great.

Posted December 17, 2012 9:25 PM

by sfdoc75

Just a bunch of eyes in the dark. What do I do with it?

Posted December 18, 2012 1:56 AM

by horkusone

I am thinking it might be nice to be able to set aside seemingly impossible photos, post them to get input from other volunteers and then go back and identify with a bit more accuracy. This might cause more trouble than it is worth but just a thought. And maybe to keep it from getting out of control with tons of backlogged photos, have a limit to how many you have set aside to 5 or some other reasonable number.

I am getting the impression that everyone here, like myself, feels a real responsibility to try and get our classifications right. I really struggle with the ones I just cannot seem to identify with confidence. I completely understand how it works with using flags from info from these hard pictures. - I just want to get it right!

Posted December 18, 2012 5:53 AM

I've loosened up as I go along. I'm much more relaxed now about giving a guess once I've narrowed it down. I still don't like the wild shots where there just aren't enough clues to say anything much other than a living creature is there. But I understand that a 'no idea' button would probably give the researchers less information than a scatter gun of guesses.

So I console myself that they like our guesses, and admire our creativity! I'd like to see a blog post about some of the images that got the biggest range of guesses.

Posted December 18, 2012 6:21 AM

by aliburchard scientist, translator

@tirralirra --- check out margaret's awesome post on this http://blog.snapshotserengeti.org/2012/12/14/we-need-an-i-dont-know-button/

Posted December 18, 2012 2:20 PM

by odie6789

I have taken to copying the image to word then zooming in to get a better look, I wish the viewing window on the site was a little bigger

Posted December 18, 2012 3:33 PM

by SafariLiz

I'm getting the same pictures returned to me for a second or third time.
I'd have though that wasn't very desireably in cases of difficult identifications. E.g. one was of a small cat that looked like a domestic cat by its pale orange colour and tail (only showed rump and tail). As that wasn't an option, I put 'wildcat' (shame there isn't a 'doubtful' button to highlight dodgy IDs. The pic came back to me, and I couldn't see the point of me giving the same dodgy guess, so I just refreshed. I've had other 'returns' that I was more sure of, but I'd have thought there could be something built into the system so that wouldn't happen.

Posted December 18, 2012 5:06 PM

Odie6789 I have taken to copying the image to word then zooming in to
get a better look, I wish the viewing window on the site was a little
bigger

if you're on a computer, all browsers have their own zoom function that works wonderfully on the pictures. I don't know IPads.

Posted December 18, 2012 5:40 PM

by loragordon

I just say 'nothing here' when I can't tell what it is.

Posted December 19, 2012 12:14 AM

by Tockolock

Please give us a Zoom feature. Even though it might be blurred it may give us another clue.

Posted December 19, 2012 10:08 AM

by dms246 moderator

@loragordon - please please please don't say there's nothing there when there is something. If you read the blog post referred to by the scientist aliburchard above, you'll see why even a guess based on almost no information is actually informative when considered alongside all the other guesses for that image, and why they have deliberately not provided us with an "I don't know what it is" button. And after reading that blog post, if you still can't bring yourself to guess, it'd be much much better if you just refreshed the page to get a different image to classify, rather than clicking on "nothing here" when there is something there.

Posted December 19, 2012 10:25 AM

by rlb66

Data is growing to large, I need a search function for key words.

Posted December 19, 2012 8:10 PM

I have reached a point where I find more photos that are good showing certain distinctive features would be more desirable. the tail choice is almost unusable, but if you could see a brushy tail that is full like horse, long with a ridge of hair ending in a tuft, long with no hair ending in a tuft, short bare, short hairy, short cottontail, etc., in a photo it might help. A set of rumps, legs (like the spot on the hocks of one of the deer, possibly common tufts, like on top of head or shoulders or hocks, hooves, there has to be more rodents, I have yet to see any reptiles, muzzle shapes, ear shapes, different age horns, I already mentioned the number of bird choices in another post. It is true that almost everything I have seen is a wildebeast, zebra or a "what the hell is that?". That isn't really true, I have seen a monkey behind, lumps in the dark that might be lions, lots of tour vehicles and a palm of a hand reaching down to the lens and a pants leg below that with stitching. I have seen birds flying and sitting. Like all of you, I spent my youth out in the boonies watching for animals and learned many of them around here and was able to look in books to find some I couldn't identify, I got used to many of them over time, just as the scientists in Africa have. My frustration, like yours comes with not enough information either in the capture pictures or the identifation section. I work with a wildlife rescue here and recieve injured and orphaned animals, try to stablise them and get them to the vet where they can be helped and hopefully returned to the wild. Excuse the rambling.

Posted December 19, 2012 10:40 PM

by rspears12

I am sure I have seen a couple of horses but not in list.

Posted December 20, 2012 12:31 AM