I was shocked when I ran out of unknowns in my county yesterday. Great to know this is happening elsewhere too! Now on to plants, where the number needing ID is so large the website gives me an error when I try to click ahead too many pages (evidently it can only keep track of page numbers for a max of 10,000 obs.)
I commend the many volunteers on iNat who spend countless hours tackling the āunknownsā and many other ID problems. I do a small part but am nowhere close to being a major reviewer. Itās somewhat depressing that there are numerous iNatters who seem to be ādrive-byā users of the site ā¦ they drop in, leave a bunch of problematic records for others to fix, then disappear, most never to be seen again. I suspect this number will keep growing. To be honest, I have no time or patience for these ācontributorsā, although perhaps a small percentage will eventually become regular (and better) users of iNat.
But, for those dedicated reviewers who are willing and able to undertake this effort, kudos!
Thatās pretty much inevitable - of everyone who checks the site out, only a few will remain active consistently (and those are the most likely to do things right from the beginning anyway). The site just needs to somehow deal with that, because the bigger it gets, the most likely it is to happen in larger quantities as well. People will see it, think āoh this is coolā, try it for a day or two, then leave. Like with a gym membership
For me, a lot if this would be solved if school teachers made the effort to review everything their kids uploaded.
Yes getting rid of the unknowns is commendableā¦
ā¦but I find that iNat shares many of the same problems I had with iSpot where almost half my observations (which are very well photographed mind you) have sat for months, even years, being only IDād at Genus/ Family level or even higher
Is that better than being āunknownā? Yesā¦but Iād still like to know what the species is at the end of the day - how many more years will I have to wait for this??
Unfortunately there are too many records being submitted without IDs and too few reviewers with the experience, knowledge, and dedication to ID them to species. The committed naturalist who really would like a species-level ID is mixed in with all the casual submitters who often donāt care that much. I donāt know how you separate the two. Maybe there should be a probationary period for submitters who are just testing out the site, limiting the number of records they can submit until they show they want to stick with it.
Also, the burden of an ID always lies with the submitter and not the reviewers. Iāve had to dive into plant ID (something Iām not good at) or occasionally bug the botanists I know for many of my own records to narrow them down below āFlowering Plantsā. Painful but also rewarding.
Been doing what I can for Washington, especially the birds.
Big shout-out to the iNaturalist Discord Server though, I know a lot of members have put a lot of effort into clearing out unknowns.
I submit my few problem children for ID.
But I spend a lot of time learning my way thru Needs ID for Cape Town. Triage - some are easy, saw that last week. Some are new to me, and a mystery to the fundis. With a chunk in the middle where I can follow the conversation via my notifications, and learn as I go.
If you want ID, it helps to pay it forward across iNat.
Iāve finished all the unknowns in my 5-county region! Currently slogging my way through the rest of California. Only about 20k more records to goā¦
Iāve gotten a lot of notifications this week about your work. Good job!
I do this periodically for unknowns in Texas, although I mostly pick out the stuff Iām familiar with (arthropods). Iām wondering how people handle observations with placeholders? I know to look out for placeholders that indicate the observer knows about their observation and will likely come back - if the placeholder is āBanded Hickory Borer Beetleā then I will leave it alone. But what about observations with a placeholder like ābugā āmothā ātreeā - would you leave those alone or add an ID?
Unless the observation is from like 2017, then Iāll mark it according to the placeholder, specifying I took it from the placeholder (and then withdraw the ID if someone disagrees or if the original user comes and agrees with it, since Iām basically just āreplacingā the original user).
I generally add as good an ID as I can, but if the placeholder seemed at all useful, then I specify it in my ID comment. Those three Iād probably just let get lost, thoughā¦
My current habit is to first copy the place holder, such as (Placeholder: hibiscus laambertil), and copy it into the comments. Then I will suggest an ID at the level of taxa I am comfortable with which could be Kingdom or Genus to get it into a more general flow.
Good way to do it! For me, when there are specific placeholders, if I donāt know any better then I try to match it in my id to serve as the userās proxy, even if I am not familiar with the species. I put re: in front of the copied placeholder to imply that I am doing so as a proxy. If itās way off base compared to folllow-on idās, then I withdraw and let the other more knowledgeable folks sort it out.
Thanks yāall. Maybe I was being too paranoid about stepping on peoplesā placeholders. Iāve seen it discussed here in the past and just wanted to make sure I was following etiquette.
Iāll usually just copy the text and paste it as a comment on the ID - in your example Iād ID it as āinsectsā or ābeetlesā and then just put (Placeholder: Banded Hickory Borer Beetle) as a comment. If the user comes back, they can add the full ID if they want, and at least it gets it into a category where people familiar with the kingdom might see it.
Yes I suppose I canāt complain too bitterly as Iāve spent very little time IDāing myself
If I can sort of keep up with current obs, then it helps me recognise what I see on next weekās hike.
So I have noticed a significant uptick in the percent of my coarse IDs that get follow-up IDs over the last few days. A good number from people in this thread. I donāt want it to stop since it gives me hope my coarse IDs might lead to something one day, but so many I canāt even
Hispaniola is down to 16 unknowns now
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=136659&iconic_taxa=unknown