The Swedish experience on verification and how to improve quality on observations

What this was about

Mora Aronsson describes human verification of species observations in Sweden's Artportalen, as distinct from automated validation. Quality now covers not only identity but accurate positions, especially for red-listed, sensitive and EU-regulated invasive species. About 480-500 contracted, trained verifiers handle roughly 20,000 observations a day (about 7.5 million a year in Artportalen alone), aiming to verify around 10%, with focus on rare, threatened and invasive species. The main open problem is communicating verification status between databases and back to primary repositories, for which a standard is needed.

Why it matters. Without a way to share verification results, corrected or doubtful records keep circulating uncorrected through aggregators.

In the room

• Position accuracy has become as important as identification, driven by protected and invasive species legislation.
• Verification focuses on rare birds, species new to the country, outliers, threatened and invasive species.
• Verification classes range from expert-determined samples to trusted reporters; "not approved" is used sparingly after dialogue with reporters.
• Verifiers receive education and sign contracts covering confidentiality of sensitive data and courteous behaviour.
• Artportalen has had verification for about 25 years (initially birds).
• Coverage is biased: birds and vascular plants have higher verification rates.
• Verification results need to flow between databases and back to primary repositories.

Notable moments