I don’t think it necessarily has to if done correctly. At the bottom of the reason suggestion, it could encourage the user to ask for clarification if they don’t understand (maybe say, “don’t understand what this means or how it helps you tell the taxa apart? Leave a comment to ask for clarification.” or something similar). The main problem is, during the times of intense iNat uploads (particularly during city nature challenges) I simply don’t have time to add ID comments to every observation if I want to get to them all. I find myself moving away from doing so in general unless asked. It just takes so much more time. I know this probably comes off as a bit cold to users, especially new ones, but most of the time, there’s really not much I can do about it unless I ID far fewer observations. This ultimately goes against why I interact with the site in the first place (to see new things and keep all the observations in my group of interest as well curated as I can). The interaction is really great, but it’s not why I use the site.
Actually, I think it would be great to do more to encourage users to ask when they don’t understand in general. Too often the IDs of observations from new users just stand in disagreement without any questions. I want higher quality identifications, and if this facilitates that and increases the community interactions in a positive way, there doesn’t appear to be a downside here. This would theoretically lead to more notifications, but hopefully, the new notification system the iNat team is working on will be able to handle the problems this would cause.