I think John makes some good points, particularly with reference to potential confusion amongst people viewing these badges. 

Bearing in mind that it is envisaged that these badges are also suggested for use on promotional literature, the basic design needs to be single colour and fairly simple.  What you don't want is printed literature to be made "out of date" because the badges on-line are dynamic and change depending on when a dataset was last updated.  Similarly, on data provider websites, you just want a simple image file badge to use, not something that requires fiddling with because it has mouse-over meta-data data text being displayed.  It is a simple "I send data to the NBN" indicator.  Printed literature cannot display metadata either.

iRecord - NBN dataflows are dependant on how each organisation wished to manage their data.  A good number of recording schemes prefer to download data from iRecord, incorporate this into their own existing (larger) dataset and upload the combined dataset to the NBN.  The badges need therefore to be applied to the organisation or recording scheme, not to the iRecord records.  What is lacking in iRecord are an easily viewable list of those recording schemes that are involved with iRecord.  Some sort of searchable "verifcation organisation" page is needed on iRecord so you can see that, for example, records of bees are verified by BWARS.  This is where you would display some info about the recording scheme and stick the badge if they send data to the NBN via their own pathway.  I don't think there is a need to badge every recording form or page.

Badges should be an indicator that data is uploaded onto the NBN.  Adding different tiers / stars / badge colours / levels to the badges only increases the potential for confusion, are "3 star" recording schemes better than "1 star" schemes.  Given that many recording schemes are very small and organised on a volunteer basis, I think it is unfair, and somewhat demotivating, to have the badges "graded" or small volunteer recording schemes "penalised" because they do not have the time to update NBN datasets on a regular (short)  time frame.  Similarly, "grading" badges or suggesting that schemes have "room for improvement" because small schemes volunteer schemes do not have the time to go through (confusing) data licencing documentation or other hoops is unfair.  Basicly, the badge should just say "This scheme puts its data onto the NBN", that is all.  If you are not a "3 star scheme", will you use the badge at all?

Copy / paste of the questions with comments

Should the badges be known as
1.    NBN Data Sharing Badge
2.    NBN Data Partner Badge
3.    NBN Data Partner Sharing Badge

None of the above:  Should be "NBN Dataset Provider"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Awarding
How should the badges be awarded?
1.    When the data are on the NBN Gateway
2.    When a data sharing agreement has been made with the NBN Secretariat

When a dataset is uploaded to the NBN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
What about data which are shared to a LERC, National Scheme or Society or any public body and then mobilised onto the NBN Gateway?

No - these badges should only be for those putting data onto the NBN directly, or else anyone would be able to claim a badge on the basis of sending a record off to their LRC
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Motivation
Will these badges motivate you to share your data with the NBN, via the NBN Gateway?
1.    Yes
2.    No

No:  Not really, a lot of websites are covered in badges and logos, this would be "just another badge".  Perhaps a "nice to have" but not motivational.  Consider also that many small schemes don't even have a website or promotional literature so the whole concept of badges is of no use to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Badge structure
Below two different approaches are proposed.

Approach 1 Here it is proposed that three tiers of *** badges are awarded.

***  - Data on NBN Gateway at full resolution
**   - Data on NBN Gateway at blurred resolution
*    - Intention to share data

Approach 2 Here it is proposed that three different badges are awarded depending on the route of data flow.
?    Institutional badge (for LERCs, Societies, Wildlife Trust etc)
?    Badge for Online Recording Systems that share data directly
?    Platinum Badge (i.e. full resolution, fully open, shared within two months of data capture)

1.    Which approach would be most suitable?

Neither.  Tiered badges are unfair and demotivational to small schemes, as is "grading" a badge based on data resolution - what about datasets with protected species of confidential locations that need to be blurred.  Grading badges by timescales is also unfair to small volunteer schemes who may only update their NBN dataset on an annual basis.  Different badges for different routes is confusing.  Stick with a single "NBN Dataset Provider" badge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.    Are there other options we could consider?

Yes - the badge should just be a simple indication that the organisation uploads data to the NBN - "NBN Dataset Provider" badge
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.    Do we need to reflect the age of the data by including an ‘up to date’ as a category?   What is ‘up to date`?

No - unfair to small schemes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.    Do we need to show the level of data resolution in the badge or is this over complicating the scheme?

No - overcomplicated.  Keep it simple
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data licenses
Data licenses (CC0, CC-BY, CC-BY-NC, OGL) all have their own ‘badge’ and so it is proposed that these are not incorporated into the NBN Data Sharing Badge

1.    Do you agree that this is the correct approach?

Yes - data provision should not be associated with data licences.

Firstly, it’s grand to have the opportunity to review the outline proposal prior to the workshop itself. Definitely an approach to welcome. Secondly, it looks like a very good thing to be conducting this workshop at the NFBR conference giving numerous NSS representatives who have lots of experience in collating and sharing datasets large and small the opportunity to comment.

-------------------------------------
The Questions 

Name: NBN Data Sharing Badge (Simplest option)
-----------------------------------------

Awarding
Badges should be awarded when a data sharing agreement has been made with the NBN Secretariat. Presumambly adoption of an approved online system/app would simplify that.

The resulting questions relate to how the actual sharing might be policed. What if a project has problems following through on its intentions? Or what if just 100 out of 100,000 records are shared? Would the badge be suspended? The important things are the commitment to share and encouraging that to happening. Volunteers who aren't able to see their own records are unlikely to be supportive or help attract others. Provided there is an effective online system in place or the NBN Secretariat is happy with the data sharing agreement (based on past experience) the badge should be awarded. Where funders are concerned an agreement or the necessary preparation should be a pre-requisite.

What about data which are shared to a LERC, National Scheme or Society or any public body and then mobilised onto the NBN Gateway? Covered by the above.
---------------------------------

Motivation
Will these badges motivate you to share your data with the NBN via the NBN Gateway?
1.    Yes
2.     No

Ideally, all data should (barring the usual issues) be shared with the NBN via the Gateway whether directly or indirectly.

I think it’s necessary to unpack this particular question a little. Firstly, lots of organisations have been sharing data (in some form) via the Gateway for many years. Others haven’t. What is the motivation for either group to suddenly adopt badges?
For me, it comes at the point of the individual recorder or local group choosing to give their time to a particular survey (or not) because they would be quickly aware that the information they supply would be passed on and be more likely to be useful (a local project contributing to the national picture). There is also incentive for funders to only support projects that commit to sharing data. This should then encourage those devising such projects to ‘badge up’ because they will be more likely to get funding and more volunteers. Local groups and national schemes will also be more likely to attract new contributors - if they can show that they are committed to sharing.  Some lack a website but will probably have a presence on the new Gateway (relevant Atlas) so their badge could be displayed there (Computer -show me all the NBN approved recording projects in my area.)

Promotion of badged recording schemes by the NBNT and others will give added incentive, particularly where there is a wish to attract more support for recording under-recorded species and encouraging those who have had involvement with their first simple citizen science project.

I expect that the knee-jerk response to the question as stated from the majority of committed recording organisations might well be “No, we’re already doing all that is possible without any badge”.

However, provided a simple system can be set up so that it is of minimal bother to add to what everyone is already doing AND the wider benefits of encouraging more sharing, more generally, I would expect many more to be in favour of this approach. (It’s a question of adopting the right system and of getting across those wider benefits AND how they’ll feed back to the particular badged project/organisation aas well as to UK recording as a whole. It's definitely worth learning from the mistakes of past useful ideas that failed to gain traction because they didn't take account of user needs and the approach taken here looks to be off to a good start).

For those who aren’t currently sharing, it would be interesting to understand the reasoning of those who remain in the 'No' camp. Is it the badge approach as they understand it or are there other reasons/obstacles which simply preclude sharing (currently)?
--------------------------------
Badge structure
The potential benefits of a simple badge system would seem to take the Partnership a significant way forwards. Complicating this would act as a deterrent taht ought to be avoided at all costs. (Thought could be given to revision in later years but there are better ways of achieving twiddly bits of uncertain merit). KISS, KISS KISS. This extends to the badges themselves.

------------------------------
Approaches  1 and 2:

1.    Which approach would be most suitable? Neither
Simplification should rule over complication. There are dangers in penalising various organsiations that do a sterling job within available resources but for various reasons aren’t able to share data as openly or as quickly as others. That would serve as a deterrent to badging.

The only possible split I would consider here would be direct sharing (e.g.via online systems/apps/consultants portal) and those submitted first ‘traditionally’  to some organisation. The main points being the need (potentially) for the online systems to adhere to agreed standards to be badged and for some way to ensure that e.g. beetle data collected online for a particular project will end up being shared with available to the county beetle recorder.

2.    Are there other options we could consider? Simple badge. Capture other information in metadata/flags.

3.    Do we need to reflect the age of the data by including an ‘up to date’ as a category?   What is ‘up to date`? No. This would seem to devalue efforts to digitise historic data (which because of its rarity is potentially  much more important). Encouraging data collection and sharing by letting the individual recorder know that their data will be passed along should be the sole goal.

4.    Do we need to show the level of data resolution in the badge or is this over complicating the scheme?  Unhelpful over-complication that should be avoided if you wish to maximise take-up..
--------------------------
Data licenses
1.    I agree with the stated approach; data sharing is not the same as providing access to shared data.

------------------------------

Addenda
The possibility of feedback on how datasets to which a recorder/citizen scientist has contributed have actually been used  would seem to be an incentive to volunteers to spend time making records or supporting particular projects in future. This would then provide motivation for collators to share data (promptly). And that would also provide feed back to funders about how and where their support is having an impact, which should then encourage greater support, data collection and sharing.

Has a badge approach been trialled/adopted elsewhere?

Any useful experience or consultation that could be taken from this: http://www.gbif.org/newsroom/news/GBIF-digital-badges
Do we need to keep cross platform compatibility in mind?

The discussions have covered the setting up of websites, but not their end-of-life. Often the project ends but the website lives on with nobody servicing it.

This is particularly the case with single-species distribution project websites. Somebody had a grant to look at a particular species - often an invasive. Funding finishes and they moved on, but the website is still wasting people's time entering records that will never be looked at (or perhaps they will - how can you tell?).

I'd like to see a link to a JPEG managed by NBN. The link would be specific to each data partner and the resulting JPEG would be managed by NBN (probably automatically by the database) to show whether the project was still live.

Thanks for all the responses so far, Tom Hunt and myself will be working through these in detail to create a summary to date.

Just a reminder that, with the NFBR conference and workshop next week, it would be great to get any further thoughts you may have at this stage so that the discussions can start on a well informed basis.

After the workshop there will be scope to comment on an updated proposal further

Thanks for your time so far everyone!

Rachel

Hi Malcom,

Just wanted to voice my support for this idea. It's perhaps not directly a badge issue and could be discussed in the working groups? My personal take on this would be that the NBN set an accepted data sharing standard whereby any new technologies that capture biological records must include the facility to generate a GUID for that record. Any record holding system should also have the facility to store and show and display that attribute. It's about establishing standard practice something the secretariat is in a position to lead on and the NBN as a whole can implement.

GUID's are simple enough to generate and it could all be done 'behind the scenes' without needing to interfere with the recording process.

There would of course still be issues (a record entered to multiple systems or sent to several places) but that will increasingly be tackled by more connected and collaborative recording systems and organisations (i wonder how we could flag that collaboration up to users..).

Lets remember we are supposedley coming at this from the "new recorder" level, a lot of the discussion in this area seems to revolve around the premise that a "new to biological recording " user will choose where to submit their data based on whether on not there is a badge.  I'm not sure that flagging up a system and giving it a badge because it generates a GUID is worthwhile because if you badge the application rather than the process then a) every bit of recording software or each individual recorder should get a badge and b)  just because it has a badge does not mean the data goes anywhere.

If implemented, these badges should indicate those who put the data on the NBN, not that there is a "potential" to do that.

We currently have a problem with legacy data licencing in mycology. We've been running a database for a long time (?20 years) with a comparatively restrictive licence. We'd like to submit the data to GBIF but technically our licence is too restrictive. We can circulate current members but obviously some are no longer with us. Part of me feels I'm making too much of this and we should just quietly change the licence, but if the data were ever used in a planning enquiry I could see embarrassment if we were challenged. My current plan is to raise it at the forthcoming group leaders meeting and take a vote. I know it can't really be decided democratically, but I feel this is a reasonable compromise.

Anyway, the reason I went into this is that the data sharing badge presents an opportunity to encourage people to open their licences up a bit. People need to think about the sort of uses their licence is designed to prevent. The usual sticking point is "non-commercial": obviously nobody's going to make a million from your records. If the records are freely available they aren't worth anything to sell, tho people may sell services based on them. Generally I'd prefer my records to be considered in any services somebody might sell (eg planning, management plans). The only proviso being that sensitive species need blurred locations. (I leave others to define "sensitive"! especially with the growing interest in foraging)