Finding 5 (or even 3) identifiers versus consensus of 2 is ‘good enough’.
Grumbles off … you find 3 more, competent and willing, identifiers.
It is a relay race, a fun run, not a sprint to the finish. Class (not quite a spider?) - Order (yes, it is) - Family.
With respect, I don’t think this thread is the right place to grumble about the way disagreements work to a newbie user who will be presenting to other newbie users who will hardly understand your cryptic comments.
A more relevant message might be, for example:
You will get notifications if people ID your observations. It is helpful to pay attention to them so that if your ID is wrong you can respond. Disagreements hinder the community ID process. If someone ID’s your observation and you think their ID is more likely to be correct than yours, you can withdraw your ID. It is better not to simply agree with the new ID unless you understand why it is correct.
It is a good document.
In some ways it is selling iNat short and at the same time raising the expectations high.
Users:
Logged on or even anonymous users can utilise the excellent spatial search capabilities to query what has been already uploaded filtered by any clade.
You can quickly get answers to
Of course not all taxa officially collected will show up as a result but even the incomplete set will give a decent idea what’s there.
I think this is the best feature and is worth demonstrating.
All the other participants are contributors.
Observers:
For biology students, I would recommend getting the relevant keys and field guides ready to know what features need a photo. If the camera is not up to it, take notes.
A lot of times the key asks for measurements. Holding plants against one’s palm gives a sense of scale (I just crop my fingertips off for privacy) A ruler of some sort is a good alternative for those well prepared.
The CV - Computer Vision - shows taxa based on computed similarities to frequently observed species. Everyone, especially biology students, should be encouraged to identify their observation to level they are sure of. These can be refined later. iNat allows identification to any clade (not just taxa and genus - please correct your document)
Identifiers:
Identifiers are volunteers. There are no paid experts.
It might be helpful to say that they refine initial identifications instead of mentioning AI.
Administrators:
I do not question that they are super humans. Maybe describing them as friendly and knowledgable would manage expectations better.
Sorry I don’t know how the mobile apps work, I am using the web based one exclusively.
The relay race example was for a Newbie.
The grumble is for active identifiers (the ones who are replying to the initial query)
which could include encouraging (mentored) IDs. When you actively ID - you realise why identifiers ask so many questions. In focus. Cropped. Or a note to tell us - blue dragonfly bottom left. And and and
If the newbies are using their phone for photos, how about strongly suggesting they review their photos and select the ones in focus before uploading to iNat? Also crop them if necessary. If none are in focus, take some more pics. It’s an extra step but would save on the abundance of fuzzy unIDable pics.