Annotating other peoples observations with "No evidence of flowering"?

[zabdiel]

If I come across a photo of a plant which doesn’t show the who plant but doesn’t show any buds, fruit, or flowers should I tag it as “No evidence of flowering” or should I leave it as there may be evidence which isn’t visible in the photo.

For instance it’s probably not possible to be certain that holly doesn’t have fruit/flowers/buds from the photo alone:

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/41216345

This is my observation, if you came across this or a similar observation how would you tag it?

I did mark as “No evidence of flowering”. I don’t 100% remember that there was “No evidence of flowering” when I took the photo but if I saw evidence I’d have taken a photo including that. I can’t remember how well I checked (probably not that well).

[fffffffff]

If photos and comments don’t state otherwise I’d mark it as no evidence of flowering, the author always can delete this annotation if it’s wrong.

[astra_the_dragon]

I think you made the right move. The annotation is about the photo. Otherwise every single flowering plant above a certain age (or arguably from the moment it sprouts) could be argued to be “evidence of flowering” and I don’t want to go down that rabbit hole.

[bbk-htx]

"No evidence of flowering” is correct.
The choice is based on the evidence before you.