Joe Momma
Moderator: Scott Waters
Joe Momma
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.
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.
Re: Joe Momma
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.
Re: Joe Momma
The first marbled salamander pic says Andrew Clay on the copyright.
- kyle loucks
- Posts: 3147
- Joined: June 8th, 2010, 1:40 am
- Location: Pennsylvania- Bucks Co. near Phila.
Re: Joe Momma
I understand some folks not being able to use their real names but this is a bit childish.
Re: Joe Momma
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.kyle loucks wrote:I understand some folks not being able to use their real names but this is a bit childish.
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.
- kyle loucks
- Posts: 3147
- Joined: June 8th, 2010, 1:40 am
- Location: Pennsylvania- Bucks Co. near Phila.
Re: Joe Momma
Indeed.
Re: Joe Momma
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
Personally I would like to see us require names and current contact info, which should include full names, IMO
Fundad
- kyle loucks
- Posts: 3147
- Joined: June 8th, 2010, 1:40 am
- Location: Pennsylvania- Bucks Co. near Phila.
Re: Joe Momma
I don't recall getting anything back from him.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
Re: Joe Momma
I corresponded with him via email a few times. I tried contacting him again later but he did not reply.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
Re: Joe Momma
Thats too bad and disappointing. We will work on way to deal with this kind of thing.
..
..
Re: Joe Momma
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 306
- Joined: August 7th, 2010, 3:48 pm
- Location: Tucson, AZ
Re: Joe Momma
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 306
- Joined: August 7th, 2010, 3:48 pm
- Location: Tucson, AZ
Re: Joe Momma
Provided that they are a chapter member, no?chrish wrote: Anyone is free to pollute our database with bogus records at any point in time.
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.
Re: Joe Momma
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.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.
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.
Re: Joe Momma
I'm not really looking at it from the point of the end-user.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 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.
Re: Joe Momma
We will work towards changing these policies..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.
Fundad
Re: Joe Momma
Changing ownership of data?We will work towards changing these policies..
- Don Becker
- Posts: 3312
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:21 am
- Location: Iowa
- Contact:
Re: Joe Momma
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?spinifer wrote:Changing ownership of data?
-
- Posts: 306
- Joined: August 7th, 2010, 3:48 pm
- Location: Tucson, AZ
Re: Joe Momma
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 306
- Joined: August 7th, 2010, 3:48 pm
- Location: Tucson, AZ
Re: Joe Momma
Excellent point Don.psyon wrote: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?spinifer wrote:Changing ownership of data?
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?
Re: Joe Momma
Spot On, Nope there isn't. And we can spell out some things to make it clear only legit records are allowed..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?
Fundad
-
- Posts: 162
- Joined: May 21st, 2012, 3:23 pm
- Location: Utah County, Utah
Re: Joe Momma
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.
- Don Becker
- Posts: 3312
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:21 am
- Location: Iowa
- Contact:
Re: Joe Momma
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.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.
Re: Joe Momma
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.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.
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.
Re: Joe Momma
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).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.
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.
Re: Joe Momma
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. -Verhoodled wrote:How to kill the record without killing the messenger, or the messenger's interest in contributing? That's the citizen science riddle.
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....
Re: Joe Momma
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.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....
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
Re: Joe Momma
Ooooh, great minds think alike...
To quote myself from a different thread where this same issue came up...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
An answer was derived and should be forthcoming for a vote soon. (?)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. ....