Survey leads on the Air Survey  compared the identification accuracy of novice participants and specialist lichenologists and discovered that for particular species of lichen, typical accuracy of identification across novices was 90 or far more, having said that for others accuracy was as low as 26 . Data having a higher amount of inaccuracy were excluded from evaluation and "this, with each other together with the high degree of participation tends to make it likely that benefits are an excellent reflection of spatial patterns [of pollution] and abundances [of lichens] at a national [England-wide] scale" . For the Bugs Count Survey, details on the accuracy of distinct groups of participants was built into the analysis as a weight, so that information from groups (age and encounter) that were on average a lot more correct, contributed much more towards the statistical model . This exemplifies that if information high quality is getting tracked, and sampling is effectively understood, then aLakemanFraser et al. BMC Ecol 2016, 16(Suppl 1)SPage 66 ofdecision might be made by the finish user about which datasets are appropriate for which objective.B. Create sturdy collaborations (to construct trust and self-confidence)To tackle the second key trade-off--building a reputation with partners (investigation) or participants (outreach)--in order to construct trust and self-assurance, effective collaborations (within practitioner organisations and between practitioners and participants) are imperative (Table 1). Being a programme delivered by a network of organisations and working using a range of audiences, this was crucial to the functioning of OPAL. Certainly it truly is important for all citizen science projects as they need the input not simply of both scientists and participants but normally a wide array of other partners too. Firstly, is there enough buy-in from partners Getting sufficient buy-in from all organisations involved can call for considerable effort, time and resources (Table 1) yet failing to have the support from either the specialists informing the project, the information end users, the outreach employees or the participants can generate tricky functioning relationships and inadequate outputs.Sis techniques tailored towards the information utilised (Table 1). A single contributor noted that "it was actually these fairly substantial worries about information high quality that drove them [practitioners] to be methodologically revolutionary in their method to interpreting, validating and manipulating their information and making sure that the science being produced was indeed new, significant and worth everyone's time." In quite a few situations, survey leaders believed meticulously about balancing the desires of participants and data users. For instance in the Bugs Count, the very first activity asked the public to classify invertebrates into broad taxonomic groups (which have been much easier to determine than species) and the second activity asked participants to photograph just six easy-to-identify species. Participants therefore learned about what features differentiate different invertebrate groups whilst collecting beneficial verifiable information and facts on species distribution (e.g. resulting OPAL tree bumblebee data have been applied in a study comparing skilled naturalist and lay citizen science recording ). Develop powerful collaborations (to create trust and confidence)To tackle the second important trade-off--building a reputation with partners (research) or participants (outreach)--in order to build trust and purchase Gallamine Triethiodide self-confidence, productive collaborations (inside practitioner organisations and among practitioners and participants) are crucial (Table 1).