It's an imaginative idea, I'll give you that. I don't think it would work, however, unless you automated the process a lot more than you have here. The reasons for ultimate failure depend on personality types.
Skeptics would soon grow tired of examining mosquitoes, moths, yellow-jackets, and flies. Helicopters, planes, and seeds drifting on the breeze would very quickly grow tiresome, and within three months, their profound belief that the time spent looking at these things, in addition to every dust-mite drifting by, is a complete waste of effort, tarnishing thereby any initial charms the project may have engendered. This would soon result in abandoned equipment and intentions. The motivation to look for something that doesn't exist must be tempered with a more reasonable approach to the issues.
In other words, if you didn't pay them, they would cease operations and spearhead efforts to get more sleep.
UFO proponents, on the other hand, have proven only one thing in the past sixty years of interest that applies to this issue: they don't require proof, and they refuse almost entirely to attempt any appropriate confirmation of cases presented. It's perfectly reasonable to assume under these conditions, that they lack the motivation necessary to follow the rules you've established above. They'll never stick to it long enough to provide a suitable database of observations, let alone one that would provide any evidence necessary to justify belief. That's why 99% of the "evidence" they've managed to collect thus far is nothing but folk-tales (the ever-present "eyewitness" reports) and poorly recounted legends that aren't even associated with this subject they only think they understand (as in Chariots of the Gods, the Great Pyramid, Stonehenge, the Mahabharata, flaming chariots or some other load of tripe they've categorized wrongly as a result of their inability to educate themselves). And talking about you-tube isn't even worth the effort -- it's faith resolved as frustration with folly.
This isn't the first time a project like the one you've outlined has been proposed. Basically, a program of this sort could easily be a good idea -- there's little that's technically wrong with it, and on the basis of knowledge and value alone, any database resulting from such an achievement would have an intrinsic value of great potential. But it will never work as a UFO research project. Those who have faith in the whole UFO scenario don't need it and are too lazy to provide it for those who need convincing. That's an obvious conclusion in light of their refusal to even attempt a confirmation of claims made the past 30-years or so, and their obsessive reliance on cases from the 1950s through the late 1970s. And those skeptical of the UFO scenario believe just as strongly that a project of this sort would be a waste of their time. If you want them to get on board, you'll have to persuade them to do it. And the quality of that persuasion will have to increase each and every month that NOTHING is accomplished beyond what they already expect.
You should look for another application of the results desired, providing thereby another motivation entirely for those conducting this kind of research in the field -- a reasonable one that has absolutely nothing to do with UFOs. This would increase substantially any hopes you might have for gathering and maintaining an extensive database with the value necessary to reach viable conclusions. In the 1990s, the United States Navy was trying to determine civilian-based, dual uses for a number of programs that were being "phased out" or significantly cut back for insufficient funds. They wanted to keep them running, because many were still useful at some level, even though the cost was believed to outweigh any actual value. By applying this "philosophy" of dual uses, the cost could be augmented with non-military funding. For example, the Navy has had a program in effect since the 1950s that collects sound data on a live-time basis. This was accomplished by use of hydrophones -- a passive "listening" system -- laid out on the ocean floor at strategic points in both the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. By monitoring the sound data, we were able to track submarines of all types, as well as surface craft and (in some cases) aircraft. By using deep sound channels in the oceans, we could very often detect and track submarines that were a thousand or more nautical miles from the hydrophone arrays. This system had reached a point of serious underfunding, but was still useful in many ways. With dual use consideration, additional funds could be applied, but only if the such uses could be established with real-time goals. The hydrophone systems, therefore, were used to collect data sufficient to provide "proof" that they could track specific ships believed to be associated with the transport of drugs, providing, thereby, a service related to drug interdiction. In additon, data related to specific whale migrations was collected, a huge database that could provide a previously unknown tool for biological research. The Navy was merely using a military system to collect data that could be used for other purposes.
In my opinion, you need to come up with a dual uses philosophy for your proposal, because I think if you put it forward as a UFO research project, you won't be able to get any of the data you want that will allow you to reach any viable, useful conclusions.