It is potentially a very powerful way to collect observations that cannot otherwise be brought together.
All trees, otherwise, are impossible.
For example, I am in trouble with Shield-bugs where the Superfamily (Pentatomoidea) is no longer available for my iSpotlight.
An issue is now occurring, any new Tree Observations will be absent from this collection unless the tag is added manually - @miked ?
Some have duplicate tags though - typically hornbeam? | Observation | UK and Ireland | iSpot Nature
Annually perhaps. Meantime we few will ask for the tag to be added when we remember.
There could be benefit in mass tagging ShieldBugs to I can reinstate my project, there seems no other way.
I can give you all the Family names. https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/view/project/831487/
I wonder if there are ANY objections to mass-tagging.
My only proviso is that IF it is possible to bring them together Taxonomically, say like Erithacus rubecula, then don’t mass tag Robins, say.
Another is that a new tag joins all the other useless ones, like here https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/view/observation/1752/
.
An advantage with mass tagging is that people are less likely to ruin the collection by forming their own, slightly different version - has happened to trees1 already.
Miked knows how many versions of the ‘correct’ OU bioblitzes there are.
Actually, I have made almost as many request to Mike and Users for REMOVAL of tags as adding!
Perhaps see my https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/view/project/824066/
Seaweeds and Shieldbugs are currently on my wish list but I’d like to know if anyone objects or sees a problem