I’ve noticed recently that a lot of people like to add IDs to observations that are already research grade- some examples being blue moon variant greengrocer cicadas and that one species of moth that was thought to be extinct, or that photo of a salmon jumping for the stars. It already has like 10 I…

Part of it seems to be just basic human instincts and the desire to be part of things. People have left little memorials of their existence for millennia: [Cueva de las Manos, Wikipedia, Public Domain] Some sort of “Been there, done that!” or “I was here too!” The other part is probably a “might…

I enjoying looking at the photos of many species, especially birds. I tend to make an ID on any observation I check out and can make an ID. I often don’t even notice until later that there was a bunch of IDs already.

There is some value in duplicate IDs (as long as they are correct, or at least as long as the identifier pays attention to corrections). They help to “future proof” the observation, in case somebody deletes their account (and all their IDs with it), and more people looking at something makes it more…

I used to skip over RG stuff and just mark “reviewed” rather than adding an ID, but one day I realized I suddenly had a ton of Needs ID stuff that I’d apparently maked reviewed without identifying, which confused me - turns out a couple of prolific identifiers deleted their accounts and all their ID…

That´s horrible, now I have to go back to every single one of my observations and mark agree on all the ones that seem correct. Just to make sure.

I think its kinda irritating and harmless to tbh. Would be cool if after a certain point, only a conflicting ID could be added. For example 4 people say something is Y, and confirming it further is closed off. But lets say I disagree and say that it is Z, then my ID goes in, and further confirmation…

the problem is, on another post someone mentioned is almost impossible to change a wrong id after so many incorrect identifications. lets say a bug was posted someone called it bug A, followed by more bug A confirmations. When someone else comes to call it bug B is hard to over drive the other nam…

Creating a second account could get you into trouble. In the instances you describe it is necessary to rally the troops to support your position. However, figuring out who to tag to get help can be a challenge. Since most IDers identify regionally, there is likely someone in that area who you can t…

I was just starting to use INAT back then, so I didnt know could get me in trouble. Also back then I didnt know people could tag other people. I discovered only after someone did it in one of my observations much much later. But is technically not my account, is my mom´s. We dedicated so much time …

Two scenarios come to mind: One, already mentioned, is that when IDers delete their profiles, their IDs go away, so having a few backup IDs is a good thing. Second, which I always bring up, is that an extra ID serves as a “preemptive disagreement” with anyone who comes along later with a wrong ID.…

Adding unnecessary identifications to unique observations?

General

swampster January 2, 2025, 12:20pm 3

See previous threads:
Why do some observation receive plenty of agreeing IDs?
Why You Should Add IDs to Research Grade Observations
In Defense of the Thousand Confirming Identifications

Topic		Replies	Views
People identifying sightings identified previously when it is unnecessary General	101	3477	April 27, 2026
How many identifications that agree are enough for an observation? General	29	2832	September 6, 2020
Why do some observation receive plenty of agreeing IDs? General question	150	5535	April 9, 2023
Why some people insist on repeating giving ID under an observation of an obvious species? General question	85	4019	July 18, 2021
In Defense of the Thousand Confirming Identifications General	36	2642	October 9, 2024

Adding unnecessary identifications to unique observations?

Related topics