I have noticed that some Research Grade observations are confirmed/identified multiple times. Some even have up to 8 or more confirming identifications. I am unsure if this is a means to really nail down an identification, or if some identifiers just like to boost their Identification tally. Is there any general consensus if this is a good idea?
Robert, have you seen Jon’s take on it?
I suppose that’s possible for some, but honestly, there’s so many needs ID that anyone just wanting a big # next to IDs could just add Kingdoms or Orders to Unknowns to get their numbers up.
(note: that’s not why I ID unknowns to coarse IDs; I just go to the level I’m FULLY confident in and I’m a generalist, not an expert, so I’m rarely fully confident).
Especially as I believe your total Identifications counts all suggestions, regardless of taxon hierarchy, so ther’s no need to agree to a species ID to get that total higher.
Sometimes I add and ID because I think the photo is good and I want to be able to find it again for reference.
It’s like saying “yes this is an excellent example of this ant”
Yes, there are some threads about this question on the forum with a lot of thoughts from community members that are worth reading. If the community wants more discussion about this topic, they could be reopened or posts moved there.
Something I didn’t see mentioned on that other thread is I will look at who has given an ID.
For example there is an ant I was just working on with 6 ID. None of them go to species. All at the genus level. Basically it’s a bunch of the ant people agreeing that we can’t narrow it any further. If I see that someone with lot of ant IDs has just left it at genus I might try to look it up and solve it… but if I can’t I’ll just add the same ID to say “you’re right, there’s not enough here”
Maybe it’s different with other animals. I don’t think you can have too many IDs on an ant.
Why does no one confirm another’s ID with evidence.? ex the lip of this orchid has 2 projections making it a Frog Orchid?
We often don’t explain why we confirm an identification because we’re working fast. No time and with confirmations there doesn’t seem to be much reason to explain. Surely whoever first put the correct ID on it knows at least some reason why. It’s great if someone wants to know more! We can’t know which people want to know more, though. Asking questions can lead to useful discussions in these cases.
Lots of people do this - you can see if you look at the new ID tips tab :)
I think it might also work as a way to ‘protect’ the RG status of and ID
If something is at RG status I’ll generally not add a third unless the IDs there were more tentative in some way or if the poster is connected to me in some way, instead I’ll usually just add a simple comment agreeing or if it’s a nice or useful picture saying so.
As things stand now, if an identifier deletes their account, all the identifications go, too. Thus an RG observation reverts to Needs ID. When you leave an observation with only two identifications, you make it vulnerable to this change, which will require action by another identifier to change the observation to RG again. Don’t search observations out just for this, but if you’re at the observation for any reason, please seriously consider adding a third or fourth identification.
Generally I work in a specific region, so if anything reverts to non-RG I’ll spot it in due course as needing an ID.
Great!
Agree. Not all ID’ers are created equal.
Thank you! Basically, it’s whatever people want to do, we’re fortunate to have them on the platform, and it has no negative impact on the functioning of the platform. I’m not complaining, just wondering, and now I have an answer!
Is this a not uncommon experience? Perhaps people are not aware of the impact they have by deleting their account. I cannot think of anything bad that would happen to the account if it were left untouched forever.
They are aware:
Account deletions are often a final act of desperation and burnout. Frustration with the way iNaturalist works, a sense of volunteers being exploited rather than supported, feeling unheard, a lack of tools, etc. They take their ball and go home. But we’re getting off-topic. If you would like to explore this further, starting a new topic is one way to do it.
Adam, the second link has nothing to do with account deletion but rather an identification strike. I realize it, like Marina, predates your time here, but the same user also began a thread on the forum. Nobody left, though, including the person to whom you have linked; you can follow from his journal to see on his iNat profile that he has been active today.
While there are of course users who have become upset at various points and deleted their profiles, others have died and their profiles are handled as their estates dictate for digital assets, with some profiles being deleted and others remaining as memorials, and other users still have just quietly disappeared. Maybe some of those will return one day. (I myself often take longish breaks having nothing to do with iNaturalist.)
The emotional side of the loss of a well known user is significant. Most recently we experienced the loss of Marina but it is also true of those who just leave.
@tiwane has explained multiple times how there is a final warning before account deletion explaining what all will be fully lost upon deletion. Since so many of us have experienced an observation falling back to seemingly unidentified due to an account being deleted, we have fallen in habit of putting identifications where we can, which is likely a large part of why you see so many seemingly extras.
If – I would leave iNat – I would delete everything. Between taxonomy changes and new taxon specialists, I don’t want to leave any wrong IDs as an obstruction forever. There are enough problem IDs from people who drift away, or just never bother to respond to please – your ID is wrong … So the extra IDs are anyway useful to support my non taxon specialist good intentions.
I do appreciate the taxon specialists who deliberately choose to keep their IDs forever here.