Joe Momma

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Post Reply
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Joe Momma

Post by FunkyRes »

http://www.naherp.com/search.php?r_owner=1252

This appears to be a fake user.
I don't know if the records are fake, though a Dusky Gopher Frog without voucher seems kind of questionable, but I thought NAFHA required real name for the person, for the purpose of credibility.

I hope I don't seem like an ass, but if anyone knows that user, can we please get them to use their real name? I'm sorry but I highly doubt `Joe Momma' is real.
User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Re: Joe Momma

Post by spinifer »

This looks like the account previously under the name 'Muff Dvr', who was responsible for a slew of erroneous data - Berms in NJ, etc. I have had an email conversation with the account holder when it was under what appeared to be a real name. Nothing seemed out of the ordinary at the time, and many of the records are at least plausible.
User avatar
DCooper
Posts: 203
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:20 am
Location: Marshall County, WV

Re: Joe Momma

Post by DCooper »

The first marbled salamander pic says Andrew Clay on the copyright.
User avatar
kyle loucks
Posts: 3147
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 1:40 am
Location: Pennsylvania- Bucks Co. near Phila.

Re: Joe Momma

Post by kyle loucks »

I understand some folks not being able to use their real names but this is a bit childish.
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Joe Momma

Post by FunkyRes »

kyle loucks wrote:I understand some folks not being able to use their real names but this is a bit childish.
I understand some people not wanting to use their real name but this is a science project and real names should be used in my opinion.
For people who want a place to post their finds other than the forum without using their real name, there's a group on reddit that is perfect for them.

But the way I see it, NAFHA is a citizen science data collection project and accountability must exist. In my opinion, I'd have to check what the bylaws actually say.

I don't think we need to be so anal retentive as to require sending in photocopy of identification, but participants found to not be using their real name should be removed as that constitutes fraudulent data.
User avatar
kyle loucks
Posts: 3147
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 1:40 am
Location: Pennsylvania- Bucks Co. near Phila.

Re: Joe Momma

Post by kyle loucks »

Indeed.
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Joe Momma

Post by Fundad »

Kyle, You asked Andrew to email you back in 2011 did he?

Personally I would like to see us require names and current contact info, which should include full names, IMO

Fundad
User avatar
kyle loucks
Posts: 3147
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 1:40 am
Location: Pennsylvania- Bucks Co. near Phila.

Re: Joe Momma

Post by kyle loucks »

Fundad wrote:Kyle, You asked Andrew to email you back in 2011 did he?

Personally I would like to see us require names and current contact info, which should include full names, IMO

Fundad
I don't recall getting anything back from him.
User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Re: Joe Momma

Post by spinifer »

Fundad wrote:Kyle, You asked Andrew to email you back in 2011 did he?

Personally I would like to see us require names and current contact info, which should include full names, IMO

Fundad
I corresponded with him via email a few times. I tried contacting him again later but he did not reply.
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Joe Momma

Post by Fundad »

Thats too bad and disappointing. We will work on way to deal with this kind of thing.

..
User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Joe Momma

Post by chrish »

The problem isn't that they aren't using their real name. The problem is that they are entering bad data.

As long as Joe Momma owns that data, what right do we have to do anything about it?
Anyone is free to pollute our database with bogus records at any point in time.
Verhoodled
Posts: 306
Joined: August 7th, 2010, 3:48 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ

Re: Joe Momma

Post by Verhoodled »

One problem with bunk data could be the bandwidth tax if folks get carried away with it, or worse still botspam the db, if they're really holding a grudge. Back in the wild west of the late 90s internet, it was a big thing to mail bomb to clog up a users mailbox. (In the 80s, mailbombing was far more manual, having to drive and whack a mailbox with a baseball bat). That gave way to the more modern DNS attacks of today. I'd kinda hate to see the db clogged up with records from Amanda Hugginkiss, B.O. Problem, and friends.

I just mentioned in another thread, wasn't the T Rex record pulled? It was deliberately submitted as a joke, but I think at the time the resolve was pretty much "Yeah, yeah, LOL, but we gotta delete this anyway."

But if there are no db bylaws rules presently addressing it, that could be an item worthy of bringing up to the membership for discussion on how best to proceed. We don't want folks clogging up the db with 30mb LOLCat BMPs and whatnot.
Verhoodled
Posts: 306
Joined: August 7th, 2010, 3:48 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ

Re: Joe Momma

Post by Verhoodled »

chrish wrote: Anyone is free to pollute our database with bogus records at any point in time.
Provided that they are a chapter member, no?

Maybe a shortcut to this whole quagmirical she-bang, is making it a chapter level issue: ie: proposing (and hopefully membership ratifying) a rule that chapter members submit records in good faith that their best effort has been made to make accurate identification, and will revise or delete the record based upon additional feedback from chapter leadership? Anyone entering data in bad faith may subject to XYZ, up to and including DB rights probation, suspension or termination. (Just brainstorming. I've given this very little thought).

Something along those lines anyway.
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Joe Momma

Post by FunkyRes »

chrish wrote:The problem isn't that they aren't using their real name. The problem is that they are entering bad data.

As long as Joe Momma owns that data, what right do we have to do anything about it?
Anyone is free to pollute our database with bogus records at any point in time.
Using a real name is not a guarantee of credibility but it at least allows a real person to be associated with the data if there is question to its validity.

For example, I put in a record for an asian newt from Contra Costa County.
Someone researching invasive species introductions can see my real name and even potentially contact me should I become inactive and my e-mail address changes.

But if that asian newt was entered by someone mamed "Joe Momma" it is pretty much useless data to that researcher. It's a bogus person, he can't cite it in a paper, he has no contact information if the e-mail address is not valid, etc.
User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Joe Momma

Post by chrish »

FunkyRes wrote:But if that asian newt was entered by someone mamed "Joe Momma" it is pretty much useless data to that researcher. It's a bogus person, he can't cite it in a paper, he has no contact information if the e-mail address is not valid, etc.
I'm not really looking at it from the point of the end-user.

I'm just making the statement that I can enter a record for a Dermophis mexicanus (a caecilian) from downtown Tucson, Arizona and no one has any right to do anything about it other than suggest I remove it. If I decide to be a d$ck, I can just leave it there, and add even more records polluting the dataset.

This is a problem inherent in a system where users own their data and have the right to control it without regulatory intervention. And it is one of the major chinks in the armor in working towards academic and professional credibility.
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Joe Momma

Post by Fundad »

This is a problem inherent in a system where users own their data and have the right to control it without regulatory intervention. And it is one of the major chinks in the armor in working towards academic and professional credibility.
We will work towards changing these policies..

Fundad
User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Re: Joe Momma

Post by spinifer »

We will work towards changing these policies..
Changing ownership of data? :shock: :P
User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3312
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: Joe Momma

Post by Don Becker »

spinifer wrote:Changing ownership of data? :shock: :P
An important question with regards to that, is whether or not deleting record constitutes removing ownership. The bylaws say we will not release any records without the permission of the owner, but is there any obligation to include every record in our database?
Verhoodled
Posts: 306
Joined: August 7th, 2010, 3:48 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ

Re: Joe Momma

Post by Verhoodled »

Valid questions and concerns. Ownership and data integrity may remain separate issues.

Controlling the noise-to-signal ratio is a challenge inherent to every facet of the citizen science movement (birders, herpers, botanists, insect buffs). In fact, NaHerp appears ahead of the curve in that respect, given the quick, helpful feedback I've experienced firsthand from NAFHA vets on IDs and best practices in general.

In contrast, some well-respected citizen science projects permit the existence of records of captive zoo animals.
Example: Gilas near Boston? http://www.projectnoah.org/spottings/12286025

How to kill the record without killing the messenger, or the messenger's interest in contributing? That's the citizen science riddle.

Perhaps propose a bylaw change that a member submitting data will act in good faith while making a submission? To revise, remove any questionable records based upon NAFHA feedback (TBD whether via chapter membership, chapter officers, some Data Integrity committee, etc).

Another option: give the chapter officers/membership/data integrity committee the ability to flag a record as "Questionable" by NAFHA Chapter leadership. So any researcher receiving such a record may note it as such. Flag the record as such after the user fails to respond to questions after an allotted time period (1 week, 1 month, whatever is reasonable).

Another idea: screen a record against a list of county/states in which it is known to appear. If it isn't found, it isn't therefore a bad record -- it could be a new range extention.

So maybe when I next enter: Pima, Co., AZ: Black rat snake, it bounces back "New county record. Are you sure? Y/N?" Considering the hundreds of species that may be found in thousands of counties, this may be a bit of a bandwith tax on hardware, not to mention the dev time of writing and testing the query.
Verhoodled
Posts: 306
Joined: August 7th, 2010, 3:48 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ

Re: Joe Momma

Post by Verhoodled »

psyon wrote:
spinifer wrote:Changing ownership of data? :shock: :P
An important question with regards to that, is whether or not deleting record constitutes removing ownership. The bylaws say we will not release any records without the permission of the owner, but is there any obligation to include every record in our database?
Excellent point Don.

No, there should not be such an obligation to host works of fiction, even as much as I love Asimov. NaHerp is the best when playing to its strengths, all of which are deep-rooted in non-fiction. Deleting a record doesn't remove ownership. Deleting would be an extreme case, when all efforts to reach a member are exhausted. If all efforts to reach a submitter are unsuccessful, it is reasonable. And if they reach out afterwards in protest, all the better -- lines of communication are then re-established for discussion over said questionable record.

Perhaps a bylaw change proposal should be submitting members will act in good faith to respond in a timely manner to questions about any questionable records.

There's certainly ample frustration when folks point out an incorrect ID only to meet radio silence without action, response, nor acknowledgement. Fact-checking works best, obviously, when anomalies are acted upon. Folks fact-checking submitted records have a thankless enough of a task.

Possible proposed workflow:
Anybody seeing a questionable record? --> PM the individual.
No response after a week (or any timeframe TBD)? --> PM Chapter leadership with a link to the record.
Chapter leadership reviews, then decides on course of action: keep/remove/flag as questionable?
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Joe Momma

Post by Fundad »

The bylaws say we will not release any records without the permission of the owner, but is there any obligation to include every record in our database?
Spot On, Nope there isn't. And we can spell out some things to make it clear only legit records are allowed..

Fundad
Herpetologist115
Posts: 162
Joined: May 21st, 2012, 3:23 pm
Location: Utah County, Utah

Re: Joe Momma

Post by Herpetologist115 »

I see nothing wrong with anything he simply doesn't want to use his real name. His data all seems good. There is no problem to start with.
User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3312
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: Joe Momma

Post by Don Becker »

Herpetologist115 wrote:I see nothing wrong with anything he simply doesn't want to use his real name. His data all seems good. There is no problem to start with.
We need names and contact information to be accurate so we can contact record owners with questions if we need to. You can flag a record as anonymous if you do not want your name shared to the public.
User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Joe Momma

Post by chrish »

Verhoodled wrote:Perhaps a bylaw change proposal should be submitting members will act in good faith to respond in a timely manner to questions about any questionable records.
I would suggest it is unnecessary to put time constraints on the response. If a record has an issue, it is flagged as "under review" or "unverified" and an email is sent to the record owner.
If the record owner doesn't respond, the record stays with that status. Records that are "under review/unverified" are not used for contests or put on maps. They should be invisible to the public unless someone specifically looks for a record of that taxon.

Data requestors should be informed that the records are under review and unverified. They can choose to include or exclude those records from their requested data.

I think it would be better if some sort of regulatory board should have the right to edit a record to update or correct taxonomy or identification if the record owner fails to do so. If not to change the actual record, at least the regulatory group should be able to "crosslist" the correct information to the record so that if someone is searching for the right taxon, that record will appear. So the record would be changed from Uta stansburiana to Sceloporus occidentalis by the regulators but the original identification will be tied to the record somehow with the statement that it was originally entered as Uta.

But we need to quit talking about this and do something about it. We've been having this conversation for years,......literally.
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Joe Momma

Post by FunkyRes »

Herpetologist115 wrote:I see nothing wrong with anything he simply doesn't want to use his real name. His data all seems good. There is no problem to start with.
Well, I have question about the voucher-less Dusky Gopher Frog - a critically endangered species that is only known to still exist in two ponds (single male was heard from a third but no evidence of reproduction).

http://www.naherp.com/viewrecord.php?r_id=60214

Maybe it is a genuine sighting, the state is right (I don't know enough about where the frogs are to know if county is right) but with no voucher it is quite possible it is mis-identification or bogus entry.
User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Joe Momma

Post by chrish »

Verhoodled wrote:How to kill the record without killing the messenger, or the messenger's interest in contributing? That's the citizen science riddle.
If you haven't ever read through this process, I think it is worth reading. I don't know if we have the programming technology to match this, but it would be ideal. -

http://ebirdsupport.desk.com/customer/p ... ty-process

The site explains how, in a database 1000 times larger than ours data from citizen scientists is evaluated by technologically and by regional experts.
If there is a better plan out there, I can't imagine what it would be.

But the first hurdle to overcome is the elephant in the room. Does anyone have the right to review/edit/fix/delete your records? Really? Where is that spelled out?

I say hell yes, but there are others who just as vehemently say hell no......and here we sit trying to fix a problem by talking it over,...and over,....and over....
Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Joe Momma

Post by Jimi »

But the first hurdle to overcome is the elephant in the room. Does anyone have the right to review/edit/fix/delete your records? Really? Where is that spelled out?

I say hell yes, but there are others who just as vehemently say hell no......and here we sit trying to fix a problem by talking it over,...and over,....and over....
This is the "disorganization tax". It is expensive. It sucks the life out of motivation. It drives people away. This is the kind of thing I was talking about in the "letter to CDFW" thread over in the CA chapter.

If you/we/whoever would take the time and trouble to clarify 1) a purpose ("why"), then 2) some goals, objectives, tasks etc ("what") - at that point, 3) "how" (roles, procedures, etc) gets a lot simpler. To me, "does anyone have the right to review others' records?" is a pretty straightforward "how" question.

Trying to answer "how" questions in an organizational setting is a majorly frustrating waste of time (over...and over...and over...) if "why" and "what" haven't been decided yet. "Decided" as in not still being debated - as in, decided and done. But going straight to "how" seems to be hardwired in us as individuals. It has to be suppressed for a while when we need others' help, buy-in, permission, etc.

I think the officers need to take the bull by the horns, draft up some straw men "whys and whats" (or perhaps there's stuff already in the bylaws that people have forgotten?) and let the membership whack away. With voting, so the process has some legitimacy in the eyes of those who don't (or didn't, back when the bylaws were first made) get everything they want.

Trying to be helpful. Disclaimer - I haven't looked at the bylaws in a long time. But I do sense a lack of consensus on purpose, etc., of the organization.

Cheers,
Jimi
User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Joe Momma

Post by chrish »

Ooooh, great minds think alike... :lol:
Jimi wrote:
If you/we/whoever would take the time and trouble to clarify 1) a purpose ("why"), then 2) some goals, objectives, tasks etc ("what") - at that point, 3) "how" (roles, procedures, etc) gets a lot simpler. To me, "does anyone have the right to review others' records?" is a pretty straightforward "how" question.

Trying to answer "how" questions in an organizational setting is a majorly frustrating waste of time (over...and over...and over...) if "why" and "what" haven't been decided yet. "Decided" as in not still being debated - as in, decided and done. But going straight to "how" seems to be hardwired in us as individuals. It has to be suppressed for a while when we need others' help, buy-in, permission, etc.

I think the officers need to take the bull by the horns, draft up some straw men "whys and whats" (or perhaps there's stuff already in the bylaws that people have forgotten?) and let the membership whack away. With voting, so the process has some legitimacy in the eyes of those who don't (or didn't, back when the bylaws were first made) get everything they want.

Trying to be helpful. Disclaimer - I haven't looked at the bylaws in a long time. But I do sense a lack of consensus on purpose, etc., of the organization.

Cheers,
Jimi
To quote myself from a different thread where this same issue came up...
chrish wrote:1. We have never had a serious conversation about the purpose or mission of the database. Frankly, without that, anything we do to try and make the process work is misguided, IMHO. We have no bases on which to make decisions without that. How can we ask "Does this change help us achieve our goals?" if we haven't defined our goals. I know what mine are, but we as a group haven't had that conversation and it is WAY overdue. ....
An answer was derived and should be forthcoming for a vote soon. (?)
Post Reply