On nature apps, gamification and community science.
I recently read a fellow bearblogger's post about the gamification of nature. I enjoyed reading their opinion. I think I agree with them, although sometimes I'm the kind of compulsive Lister they refer to.
I'm a certified millennial
I'd like to begin this article with a little bit of context. I'm a certified millennial. From an early age, I've spent a lot of time with a screen glued to my face. To be honest, my attention span is so low I sometimes struggle with reading. That is probably why I had a really difficult time learning the basics of ornithology, even if I downloaded pamphlets on common birds identifications on my phone a millions times. Usually when I see a bird I can't identify, I Google "how to identify a prey bird from afar" and look for diagrams and photographs of identification features. Then, I swiftly forget what I just have learned. I've done that for years.
The Dive
Yet for some reason, when I studied flies and mosquitoes in mid-2025, it clicked immediately. I hyper-fixated on that matter so much that it became a part of my identity. Now my friends send me all kinds of clips and photographs of gnats and midges, and all eyes turn to me when entomology pops up in a conversation. (being a nerd in an even nerdier group, random niche scientific conversations like that happens often). However, after a few months of quiet reading or solo collecting trips, my interest began to fade; I tried to join some local entomology groups, but the magical spark of easy social interaction didn't happen. I was too deep in this to quit but too socially awkward to connect with others amateurs. Entomology felt lonely. As I usually do, I collected stamina with nerdy activities : Excel listing, maps-softwares and book collection. That's when apps like iNaturalist are amazing. iNat does exactly that. With a cool sense of community and a fun UI. I get to collect insects like one would collect stamps on a Pokedex, and I practice that hobby alongside many other weirdos eager to talk about a very specific subject and nothing else. Some people will identify 100 earthworms everyday and send you a kind comment talking about exactly that, minus the excess frill we often need to perform on social settings -- assessing each other's status, knowledge, general view on nature while engaging in headless mundane conversations. Here, anyone can pick a random line of knowledge and educate the world about it (necessary criteria for identifying earthworms, for example). Then, people like me will hunt earthworms for the sole purpose of updating their Pokedex. Before iNat, I already thought that it would be cool to know how to tell if any particular earthworm in my yard is invasive or not, but I doubt I would ever have went down that specific rabbit hole. I don't think I would have found a comprehensive field guide on earthworms in French, anyway. It's amazing having such open doors to knowledgeable people. I'm going to scroll and push buttons for fun anyway, at least I can do that and get caught by knowledge and community.
People tend to forget iNaturalist is built like any other social media
People tend to forget iNaturalist is built like any other social media. You get to follow people, give comments and likes. For me, iNat fills this exact thumbs-up-shaped-gap left by years of Instagram scrolling. The thing is, iNat's official communication is stuck between two opposite forces. On their website, they state that the platform is built "in order to connect people to nature and advance biodiversity science and conservation". That makes two really different purposes.
I think the platform is really good at connecting people to nature. Sometimes, I only go out to take a bunch of pictures of random plants and get to push buttons, complete my Pokedex and feel artificially validated. Some other times, iNat connected me to some valuable knowledge about nature in a fun way, as stated before with the earthworm example. Even my nemesis, the identification of birds of prey, became easier with seeing images of birds with proper identification on my screen, every day. Now, I can confidently identify a red kite in a blink.
I'm more skeptical about the science part. "iNaturalist observations are used in thousands of scientific publications", they say. I've seen community managers emphasis that users get to help real-life researchers and, ultimately, science. I believe this is a major driver for users. A new orchid species, found through the power of community science. This discovery has been shared ad nauseam, especially by power-users who are certain their data will be used in Science™. However, they seemingly forgot that photographs do not make good quality data. A lot of observations are misidentified, either by users themselves or by Computer Vision. Here, crunch some numbers :
- "As of 12 Sep. 2025, the [computer vision] is wrong about 90% of earthworm species IDs, and over half of non-species IDs" said expert user @thirty_legs
- Observations are inaccurately identified on 41% of lichen easier species. This number drops to 93 to 95% of inaccurate identification for lichen species that require microscopy or chemical analysis, as observed on a review of 607 observations (macrophoto, microscopy and chemical analysis included)
- In early 2026, iNat's staff conducted an experiment on data accuracy. Not only this experiment showed that identifications tend to become weaker with less-observed taxa, but the method of the experiment itself is questioned by participants on the comments. Those reclamations are met with some bland "thank you for your work" answer.
The pros and cons of community science
Finally, I think iNaturalist is a great example of what community science apps can and can't do. If we are chronically addicted to our phones, we might as well talk to each other about ants, birds, lichen and earthworms. I'm grateful for this melting pot of nature lovers, hikers, gardeners, amateur experts and professional biologists. I'm happy to dump pictures of some organisms that interests me enough to look at, but not enough to study extensively. My observation may draw someone's attention, get properly identified and add items to my Life list. I love browsing my own observations to find some rare or less-observed taxon. It's especially easy with insects because we don't have enough entomologists here and the occurrence points are scattered across the map. But we need to remember that our data is weak, and that's ok. We don't conduct scientific research when we upload pictures on an app. We may feel the urge to slightly misidentify or overview some features just to feel this instant reward of one's rank going up. This can't be compared to the systematic, slow process that is research in biology. Apps like iNaturalist and eBird can provide valuable insight on easier, larger organism, but we need to stay alert for trickier taxa like annelids, insects, arachnids, lichen or mosses. The community-made data can and will cause harm to the accuracy and veracity of larger data sets. I'm happy that I can complete my naturalist journey with in-person knowledge sharing sessions, even if I feel anxious and socially awkward. Added with compulsive reading, I may, someday, get to be a skilled amateur naturalist.
That's all for today's post.
<3 I'd love to read you thougts, send me an email! <3
P. S. : Remember this is a brain dump on a language that is not mine: I may seem cold or offensive but it's not my intention. Please let me know if somethings is nonsensical, I'll try to correct my post.
Edit : Tom from the Naturalist's Rabbit hole wrote a cool follow-up.Ge check it out!