Nope! I explain to you, Amazing nature is a community with a scientific approach, "leaving aside post reflection, or travel", we encourage our users to create content with an ecological contribution! how do you do it? describing a little the ecology or taxonomy of the photographed species and IT IS ESSENTIAL when describing something in our post to use bibliographic sources! your post has nothing wrong or you would already be silenced! I am motivating you to receive better rewards, remember that we are not a photography community!
Every time I post in this community, I review its rules to make sure nothing has changed in the meantime. Every time I read the following: "Dedicated to all Nature-Lovers out and their posts, no matter if Zoology, Botany, Landscapes or Philosophy ^^" and also: "...Thus we expect more than just plain pictures and are eager to read the motivation behind every single picture that you are sharing". I think I have always followed this, explaining my love of nature and what prompted me to take these pictures. There is no mention of a requirement for sourced scientific data. And I've never done that either because it's not my style of blogging. So maybe you should change your rules so that it is clear and understood by everyone what your real posting requirements are.
I understood all that.. Did you understand my suggestion? I will write it again:
If you want to receive votes from our DNA team, I invite you to create scientific content identifying the species photographed and using bibliographic sources!
The only thing I don't understand is what your suggestion has to do with the initial plagiarism accusation with which you started this whole discussion.
MISS no one accused you of plagiarism you created a confusion, this is how it is written in the rules look:
It clearly says that in addition to demanding certain conditions we do not tolerate plagiarism! in short, take into account our advice for your next post!
You started the conversation with the big: WE DO NOT TOLERATE PLAGIARISM ! and then you tell me I created a confusion. You could start with your suggestions first.
Although, I actually didn't tag or mention the DNA.org anywhere in my post, so that it could prompt this subsequent, unexpected result.
There is really a big confusion here, I guess.
Hey, would you explain what do you mean by that?
Do you mean, it is plagiarism when I use my own pictures but I haven't marked any one of them as mine exclusive property?
Nope! I explain to you, Amazing nature is a community with a scientific approach, "leaving aside post reflection, or travel", we encourage our users to create content with an ecological contribution! how do you do it? describing a little the ecology or taxonomy of the photographed species and IT IS ESSENTIAL when describing something in our post to use bibliographic sources! your post has nothing wrong or you would already be silenced! I am motivating you to receive better rewards, remember that we are not a photography community!
Every time I post in this community, I review its rules to make sure nothing has changed in the meantime. Every time I read the following: "Dedicated to all Nature-Lovers out and their posts, no matter if Zoology, Botany, Landscapes or Philosophy ^^" and also: "...Thus we expect more than just plain pictures and are eager to read the motivation behind every single picture that you are sharing". I think I have always followed this, explaining my love of nature and what prompted me to take these pictures. There is no mention of a requirement for sourced scientific data. And I've never done that either because it's not my style of blogging. So maybe you should change your rules so that it is clear and understood by everyone what your real posting requirements are.
@hive-127788
Just to make the things absolutely clear, I personally took all those photos with a device I own.
don't see the negative part see this part :(Always reference the source of pictures and information that you use in texts, even if they are your own)
There is nothing to be sourced here: my own pictures and my own text - thoughts and experience.
I understood all that.. Did you understand my suggestion? I will write it again:
If you want to receive votes from our DNA team, I invite you to create scientific content identifying the species photographed and using bibliographic sources!
I GIVE YOU EXAMPLES:
https://peakd.com/hive-127788/@mariajcastro28/descubriendo-nuevas-y-hermosas-plantas-en-un-jardin-or-discovering-new-and-beautiful-plants-in-a-garden
https://peakd.com/hive-127788/@chaodietas/this-is-a-tough-mushroom-to-gnaw-fuscoporia-torulosa-phellinus-torulosus-engspa
https://peakd.com/hive-127788/@deltasteem/macrophotography-oror-some-photography-collections-of-chrysanthemum-flowers-in-the-dry-season-yesterday
Of course, I understand your suggestion.
The only thing I don't understand is what your suggestion has to do with the initial plagiarism accusation with which you started this whole discussion.
MISS no one accused you of plagiarism you created a confusion, this is how it is written in the rules look:
It clearly says that in addition to demanding certain conditions we do not tolerate plagiarism! in short, take into account our advice for your next post!
You started the conversation with the big: WE DO NOT TOLERATE PLAGIARISM ! and then you tell me I created a confusion. You could start with your suggestions first.
Although, I actually didn't tag or mention the DNA.org anywhere in my post, so that it could prompt this subsequent, unexpected result.
There is really a big confusion here, I guess.