I’m not sure it’s possible to tease out those insights from this survey, but I think it would be great to try to collect relevant data in a future post. For example, my hunch is that people who focus on arthropod, annelid or fungus identifications would rate particularly highly for this response.
Too many Computer Vision identifications to correct
And maybe also for these ones:
Too many observations have poor quality evidence
There are too few identifiers on iNaturalist
Too many observations to identify
The same factors can be an annoyance for us plant identifiers, too, but we really have it so much easier!