I would say that this is not a question of etiquette, but guidelines. I disagree that users should ignore the guidelines that the site has laid out for its use because a user personally disagrees with those rules which seems to be what is being advocated for.
But I don’t think the guidelines forbid, preclude, or discourage consulting an expert who is not on the site or using someone else’s expertise. This seems like a false dilemma. If a user is taught how to make an ID by someone not on iNaturalist and then can make that themselves afterwards on iNat, there’s no problem.
Another good reason for the policy against agreeing blindly or posting another person’s ID as one’s own follows from this - a user doing this can’t explain their reasoning for the ID or teach others. iNat’s purpose is really about connecting people with nature and helping them grow, which I think this approach helps support.
I would answer “yes” to this question:
I believe it is different for (at least) three reasons.
The CV is, by and large, repeatable, testable, and verifiable by another user, even if it is a black box in terms of process (though it does change over time, so repeatability isn’t constant). I think it’s reasonable to think of the CV as a community-authored key or tool that can be used by individuals for ID (though obviously one that can be be used very easily and uncritically). Many other tools (like a simple guide book) can be used uncritically too, though the ease of the CV is pretty unprecedented.
IDs from the CV are indicated as such which adding IDs from external experts may not be (though they may be).
CV IDs are supported by iNat, while adding IDs from other users/agreeing blindly really aren’t. A bit pedantic sounding, but I do think it’s important.
If one followed iNaturalist’s own help text you posted as a hard rule, this would disqualify use of iNaturalist’s own CV :
As you say, there is a difference here in that it is denoted by the CV icon.
But then I would never add an expert ID without adding the name of the expert who gave me the ID.
The CV is an incredibly powerful generalist.
It’s not yet comparable to taxon specialists.
Choosing to give some arbitrary weight to the CV over international expertise in this context, makes zero sense.
As I said, this action isn’t just my personal approach… I’ve seen many of the major Diptera identifiers pull IDs from experts off site in support of iNaturalist observations. But yes… I certainly advocate for it.
The alternative could be (for example) that a rare photographic observation which has species-level identification from the sole person capable of identifying it globally gets left at family or genus and just becomes lost in the ether. That’s just shooting ourselves collectively in the foot.
In general, common sense should trump overly pedantic adherence to a guideline which was clearly written with other use-cases in mind. The help page is not a bible to subscribe to dogmatically.
If I come across an obs from my Fynbos Ramblers, I was there, saw that, we discussed and agreed because … yes I will add my second ID agreeing with them.
I don’t see any valid reason not to add an ID (yourself) with a comment that it was confirmed by Mr Bird. There are MANY IDs like that across iNat! Some taxon specialists don’t / won’t use iNat, but the ID comes in conversation face to face or by email. Perfectly valid. And especially valuable when it is a first obs of a live specimen on iNat, range extension, unfolding discussion, whatever.
@suecarbut I later realized that it could be problematic for identifiers who work on more than one platform
Then you could withdraw your own ID, and wait for a ‘third’ party to agree.
I don’t see making an ID based on an outside consultation as violating the iNat guidelines. No where does it say that the knowledge used must be internalized by the user making the ID. Asking a presumed expert is a traditional method of getting IDs. Citing them makes it clear where this information came from. Why can we use a field guide or key or any other resource?
I think the guideline was meant to prevent parroting another iNat user’s ID with the Agree button. Making an ID based on field guides, floras, keys, or consultation with a person that you think knows is acceptable. This is the Way.
What an outside IDer does when they encounter their own ID is up to them. They could provide the ID and ask for the observer to withdraw their ID. They could just add the ID (they think the observer now knows the taxa). Or they could pass it by. I don’t think they’d be violating any iNat policies either way.
Why don’t more people ID? Catching grief for not being an expert or a wrong name or not citing a reference or citing a reference…
I don’t see anything wrong with adding your own physical ID on iNat (I would encourage it). As far as iNat is concerned, there was no other ID from you.
A possible suggestion for these cases would be to make the appropriate identification – agree with yourself, with or without a note about having supplied the initial identification referenced by the observer – and mark the Data Quality Assessment (DQA) as “ID can still be improved? =Yes” to keep the observation from becoming research grade, if the research grade status in particular is a concern.
LOL. Yes you are overthinking. I think many are overthinking. I think iNaturalist is a place for experts and non-experts alike. We all know to take some id’s at research grade with a grain of salt. That is why it it is suggested id and others can agree or not. Enjoy the process and encourage others.
Either ask the person to take down the id so you can id here
or simply leave a comment that Yes that is your id and thank the person for acknowledging you.
My guidelines for me:
I never agree blindly with an expert, I leave it for someone with expertise to set it to research grade.
For my own observations, if an ‘expert’ has made an id for me, but has not entered it into iNat. eg. on BugGuide or in the field or as a friend. I will enter it in iNat with the cross reference if there is no other id in iNat. It is more likely to be looked at than leaving it at insect. I will not use it to set to research grade. It can always be left as a comment.
If someone gives a different id from me and I am not sure, I will readily remove my id, but not agree.
What makes an expert? “An identification confirms that you can confidently identify it yourself compared to any possible lookalikes." Is this a measure of expertise or confidence. I am not an ‘expert’ in anything, but think I am ok at many things in my area. But I often lack confidence in everything. Should I stop identifying things for myself or others?
PS. Long time no see. I hope you are doing well in AZ.
