I know this topic has been discussed numerous times, but we should all try to be at least neutral, although friendly is even better, in our communications with other users. We definitely shouldn’t be talking down to other users especially in regard to their/our lack of knowledge, accidental misidentifications, or incorrect info. Users can be anyone. Whether a professional, a serious hobbyist, or just a casual user, assume people are trying their best to contribute to biodiversity knowledge. I have been told I am wrong many times. Friendly or neutral: Are you sure that location is correct? Or That location data might be incorrect. Negative not neutral: There is no way that plant is growing THERE, fix the location!
I think you will find pretty universal agreement on this forum with your point. If you feel like a comment crosses the line of any iNaturalist community guidelines, though, please flag it for attention or, if you prefer to be more anonymous, report it directly to iNaturalist staff.
13 Likes
I do strive to be neutral or positive in my interactions, but what seems neutral to one person might seem negative or accusatory to another. I often use declarative statements if I am 100% confident that a location or date/time is incorrect. For example, if a photo shows an ocean in the background, and the location is plotted somewhere that lacks an ocean, I will say “can you correct the location? It seems to have been misplotted”.
25 Likes
Some of them are just embrassingly petty or maybe even it was my bias that made them seem negative, rather than neutral. I also often wonder if they are misconstrued attempts at humor. The user today who rambled on for a paragraph in a comment about how the only way I could know the species was if I had examined the cloaca with a microscope… 
6 Likes
Perfect response.
1 Like
Things like this are inevitable on a global site like this, with innumerable backgrounds and cultures and norms represented in the community. It’s why one of the pillars of community interactions here is to always start out assuming good intentions behind peoples’ words. For sure that can be hard to see sometimes, and occasionally it’s very obvious that someone is not interacting in good faith. That’s when it is time to put the flagging system to use.
14 Likes
I agree and disagree.
The bad example you quoted is impolite. Use of capitals is shouty. The same without capitals and a “please” would make it completely acceptable.
Consider this: Would you prefer the identifier ticked a box making your observation casual, without a word, instead of leaving a grumpy message?
I prefer direct speech. I leave a lot of comments like “This is not a grass” or “This is not a moss” instead of bumping it up. Indirect speech and providing hints are considered more polite but it would blunt the message and imply that I am not sure.
Often a factual comment opens a dialogue where both of us learn something.
11 Likes
I’ve known quite a few biologists who are deficient in the social graces, which probably comes across even worse in writing than in conversation. Sometimes they’re as arrogant as their language suggests and other times just clueless of how they sound. That said, I do agree that it’s beneficial to be very neutral in language if one can’t manage being polite. Of course neutral language can be seen as blunt and come across as aggressive or dismissive.
Also the title of this thread has take rather than talk. Please fix. ;-)
14 Likes
If today’s AI is good for anything than for mimicking politeness and social compliance in writing.
Maybe one should install an AI filter which proposes different language if what is for posting is clearly not apropriate ?
If that’s then overruled, the author has no excuse for language skills or cultural background an you can take clear (and polite 
) position against the author.
2 Likes
As some have mentioned, intended tone doesn’t always come through very well. I always worry that comments I leave on ID corrections might come across as condescending or rude. Sometimes finding the right wording can be harder than finding the right ID! Of course there are examples where people are intentionally patronizing or harsh in their corrections, but it seems like the exception rather than the rule in my limited experience.
IDers should (and usually do) try to be polite and respectful in their comments, while observers should (and usually do) try to give the benefit of the doubt and realize that the blunt correction provided by an identifier might have simply been intended as a rushed and concise explanation rather than something that was written with a sneer or guffaw. Perhaps anfra is onto something with his AI idea haha.
6 Likes
Expanding a bit on the idea of what @jnstuart had mentioned, quite a lot of folks in these spaces can be neurodivergent and what may come across as rude may not be intended as such. People who are neurodivergent often speak very matter of factly. With online communications, it is quite a challenge to convey agreeability or cordial speech, and directness may not necessarily indicate rudeness in the eyes of the writer.
On the other hand, it can be quite alienating, especially to a newcomer, once they hear quite bluntly that they had made a mistake. I think what is best practice is to assume good faith when there is a mistake that is made and go from there. We all don’t have the same access to the same equipment or resources that another may have, and we are all learning about the complexities regarding the diversity of life on earth!
20 Likes
It’s been fixed.
2 Likes
100% agree.
Perfect example of pointing out a mistake, well. I may have unconsciously made the mistake just to give someone that opportunity.
1 Like
Thanks for those links
Self-managed strategies - socialising through online platforms - making connections with people who have similar interests
and so to iNat
3 Likes
A bit of a rant: Speaking from experience, as someone who is from a background in several intersecting marginalized communities, entering academia is hard. Unless you have access to the latest papers, the latest research, the connections, the finances to enter it, the ability to devote time to it, it is quite an uphill climb. Moreso for those who come from backgrounds which may make things harder for them to enter. A learning disability can result in lowered grades because of a lack of time given for proper educational attainment, an unstable financial situation may lessen or even bar the amount of time someone is able to attend school.
Life on earth is so complicated and weird, some species look just like other species and some species are actually other species but are only distinguishable from genitalia or microscopic details or whatever and so forth. The classification of life on Earth is always shifting and moving and changing. Just yesterday I noticed whatever the heck is going on with the classification of Marasmiellus candidus on this site.
Rounding back to my original point, people who do not have access to this knowledge are in good faith entering this from a genuinely curious perspective and are bound to make mistakes. Even experts can make mistakes. Wildlife blindness has become a very real thing, especially now with more disengagement with the natural world. Many of my peers are not familiar with what the difference between a moss and lichen are, let alone knowing what they are. However, many people who are on here approach this in good faith by trying to learn more, and it is ideal that subject matter experts try and understand from that perspective as well. I do hope that iNaturalist can be accessible for everyone, no matter what background they are.
It can be alienating hearing from someone who can come across as cold in their communications, or even harsh. Maybe as a rule of thumb, try and be constructive and assume that the person’s mistake is in good faith, and go from there. Ideally, we want to retain newcomers to ensure their future participation.
11 Likes
Thank you @mrfish33. Your own responses to my observations have always been very polite and appreciated!
This isn’t exactly what OP is talking about, but it gives me a place to share something I have noticed. Part of my personal journey on iNat is getting better at receiving and giving feedback.
If I get a ID correction with a comment that angers me, usually at least some of my anger is related to my embarrassment of being corrected. If I revisit the comment later, I might be able to see that the comment is neutral.
Regardless of tone, if it’s right, I can learn from it. By reflecting on this and actively responding positively, e.g. “Thanks for the correction!” , I can build neural pathways that reduce my defensiveness against feedback. Being more receptive to feedback sets me up for learning.
If someone gives a snarky reply to my ID or comment, I think about whether I could have phrased it differently. It’s not that I have to be liked or that I have a responsibility to never upset anyone. I do like being perceived in a way that matches my intent. Who likes being misunderstood?
If I do get a pointlessly snarky response, I pretty much never respond to that person. Walking away from energy sucks is also good practice. If someone chooses to be grumpy (and maybe wrong), that’s their choice.
It’s all skill building. I realize not everyone wants to put that much energy into communicating. Hence the mass of IDs without comments. Maybe it’s best to keep our expectations about comments to the minimal as to not further discourage them.
20 Likes
my brother uses inat, he’s a minor and still has a lot to learn. He’s more of a casual user but enjoys the simple easy access to such a wealth of information and looking at what’s around him.
On multiple occasions I have seen comments under one of his observations that had a misidentification from him, and the commenters are either oddly condescending or plain rude. You’re a grown adult talking down to a child. Act like an adult, it’s pathetic behaviour. My 14 year old brother is not a biologist, entomologist or microbiologist. he’s a high school student. Get a grip guys.
7 Likes
That circles back to - fill out your profile. Yesterday I was checking on a new ish to me name - and he is 15. Our conversation was good, but my social media 101 was check who you are talking to. I remain mortified, decades? later, that I, who am no chemist, explained something trivial. To an ‘I am a chemistry professor’ whose actual response was so kind and gracious that he made 101 a lesson I still remember. Back to Google Plus days when we met random strangers across the world - with not even an interest in nature in common.
And I appreciate taxon specialists who leave brief comments (not every time, but for the interesting stuff - narrow inner tepal with an elbow).
14 Likes