iSpot and recording

Hi, I’m fairly new to both iSpot and biological recording and have been using iRecord to submit records for taxa which I have confidently identified myself, while posting sightings of taxa I am unsure of on iSpot.

As my primary interest is in creating data that could be useful for research or conservation, I’d like to ensure that as many of my sightings as possible end up in accessible records. I have read on the forum that some taxon experts will come to iSpot for data, some create ‘projects’ to collate sightings and that some sightings on iSpot are linked to the NBN atlas…

Should I submit sightings to iRecord after getting a confident ID from an iSpot expert (with appropriate recognition of course)? Or is there a risk of duplicate recordings, or just increasing the data processing burden of BRC staff? If some iSpot sightings automatically appear on the NBN atlas, does this mean some sightings are automatically collated to recording schemes? If so, how do know which ones have been?

Please re-direct me if this has already been addressed in the forum or iSpot help pages.

Many thanks

1 Like

This is a tricky one and something all recording schemes face. Some of the ispot data has gone to irecord and some to recording schemes especially if they are producing an atlas or just ask for it. The aim is to get it all onto NBN/GBIF but there are still some technical difficulties and lack of funding for this part.

i have mixed responses from iRecord. I tend to submit (to them) my rarer records and almost always receive a note to suggest unacceptable because not in the known range.
I think you would be MUCH better submitting to your local Biological Records Centre which/who should say whether the record is acceptable and thank you for taking the trouble.
I think it is fine using the reputation system in iSpot to ‘confirm’ your observation.
Local and regional Biological Records ‘Centres’ are found via a Web search - they usually have excellent Websites - here’s mine

I take the view that iSpot’s purpose is to help recorders with their IDs (both by providing IDs directly and, more usefully in the long term, helping us all improve our ID skills through guidance, comments support etc.).

It is not therefore a recording scheme (albeit some scheme do harvest data from here) and I doubt anyone submits all their records here (on a typical day’s wildlife recording it is quite possible to generate 100+ records and I doubt many people would add them one by one to iSpot).

So I’d say use iSpot to help ID (or verify your ID) and then submit to the relevant recording scheme is the best approach.

Thanks all, it seems my approach is not unusual/unreasonable. I tend to produce casual records at work, in the garden or on walks with the family, so iSpot is very convenient confirming those.

I can see various benefits to getting involved with a local records centre, which seem to function as or be affiliated with local natural history societies. But for records from other counties or countries, I guess iRecord or national recording schemes are more appropriate.

You might, just might, achieve some Global satisfaction here
Your Beech Gall
BUT do not forget WE are far more discerning, cautious, inquisitive, scientific and friendly.
I hope no-one else here sees this!

Near the end of February I spent a day recording in Nottingham, at monad resolution. I ended up with over 250 records, spread over 9 monads. (I’ve beaten 900 records in a day, walking long stretches of canals.)

1 Like

Generally yes. There should be data sharing arrangements up and down. So data on iRecord/NBN should get the a local record centre and vice-versa. Not trivial to set up those arrangements (and GDPR has really added a new dimension of consideration) so it may be worth checking for the taxonomic groups you are interested in and then decide from that where it is best to submit.