I would like to address a practice I call @bombing, by which I mean someone providing an ID, repeatedly @ing those who’ve provided a different ID and arguing with them, and then @ing mutliple allies/users to try to overturn an ID.
There is nothing I’ve read here that suggests this is against the rules, but it seems at best to be putting a thumb on the scale and at worst to be cyber bullying. This has happened to me twice, and in both cases it seemed to me there was an element of intellectual dishonesty or at least hyper-reactivity. Are there guidelines regarding such behavior? It seems a matter of degree not kind—it makes perfect sense to ask questions and reach out to people who can help when you think iNat contacts might be able to help, and we’ve all changed and will change our minds. But when done repeatedly to me it is a behavior of concern.
In the first case the first IDer said the photo was unidable, and then insisted it was and started @ing. On the second post of concern there were I think we were at least seven people tagged by the time the IDer got the ID they wanted—only one responded. I can no longer verify because they’ve deleted their tags and the arguments, which suggests they were uncomfortable with their own behavior.
Thanks for any thoughts, recommendations, etc., or maybe just think about this as you go about your IDing if you do that. I’ve just taken a break from IDing and gone birding, which is working well. But I’ve not seen this mentioned (obviously it’s rare), and I thought it worth doing so. And I’ve never seen the system not work well without it.
I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with this, and starting a conversation with IDers to resolve a disagreement is actually good form in my opinion. There’s definitely nothing against the rules here, and as long as everyone is making IDs in good faith (i.e., based on their own expertise), this is a positive behavior in my mind. I think the only issue would be if the individual comments themselves don’t abide by iNat’s Community Guidelines or if IDers are IDing in bad faith. I think most high volume IDers have a short list of people that they know can reliably ID certain taxa that they mention in cases where there are disagreements to draw them to those observations to give an ID. In cases where there are disagreements, 3+ IDs are needed to overturn them, so mentioning other IDers makes sense.
Thanks for your reply. I think the the key phrase is “everyone is making IDs in good faith.”
Repeatedly @ing someone is rude, I think?
(I have seen people mention here that once an Observation of theirs reaches RG, they remove comments that aren’t related to it having reached RG. I assume this would include tags and things like “thanks!”
I sometimes remove a tag if the person I have tagged has never responded (I figure it’s either uninteresting to them or they didn’t see it) but I am only moderately less neglectful of my Observations now (with the exception that sometimes I revisit them with the knowledge I have accumulated now and am surprised how many I can now name to species).)
re: the topic I have seen people talk about how hard it is to overturn a bad ID and how they sometimes have to call on others to help. I am not sure how this would be different?
Just to make sure that nothing gets lost in translation - to argue with someone and to have an argument are two pairs of shoes, in my understanding. You can argue with scientific facts and in a rational or even friendly tone, and I would say that the iNat community is a place where you can and should do that, so that there is a learning involved for everyone, plus people understand why someone disagrees with an observation.
I think the only issue here is that usually it is in my opinion not a good practice to tag (@mention) too many people at the same time - since people doing identifications would get too many notifications. Some misidentifications can be difficult to corretc, if the users are not active anymore or do not react to rational arguments regarding traits that are (or are not) visible - hence it can be helpful and even necessary to tag other identifyers - althoughit should be ensured that these are people that know the taxon rather than trusting the identification of the person that tagged them.
That is the issue, I think. With well over 95,000 IDs, I can promise you I’m happy to correct errors. And I do @people if I’m not able to help. If people disagree, I move on and let the system work. As I mentioned, it’s a matter of degree not kind. Of course it’s fine to @ people. But as people continue to do that when they’re not getting the answer they like it seems like bias in the system to me. And I found it odd that the most recent person in question erased their comments and many mentions. And I shouldn’t return to find that I’ve been @ed multiple times within less than an hour. One will do.
Yes, I think it is a matter of degree not kind. Of course people will disagree about IDs, especially on poor photos. Getting repeatedly @ed and having over ten notifications in a short time felt aggressive. And when those @s didn’t get a response they were followed by another round. And then all were deleted. That, I think, is not an ID being difficult to overturn. The @ing and tagging continued relentlessly until the user got their preferred ID. Then the entire thread was purged except my responses. I’m happy to delete or withdraw incorrect IDs, and I don’t think I’ve ever taken more than a day (usually much less) to do so.
I would ask whether an ID should depend on your considered assessment of the evidence or how many allies you can recruit. I recruit none, unless the observation is lingering with no ids, it’s a new user, I know someone in the area of expertise that might help when I cannot, or some other such situation.
Perhaps IDing is not for me.
The behavior you describe is aggressive. Thank you for clarifying further. It is understandable why you would feel harassed. I didn’t quite understand from the initial post.
Arguing for one’s identification on iNat is fine (within the guidelines), @ing others for their well considered input in fine…but the behavior you just endured is not.
IDing is for you. That behavior is not.
The behavior is so impatient I wonder if there might be a reason for it, like extreme youth and/or difference of some sort.
If you think either or both could be at play, it might be a kindness to say that tagging someone multiple times, especially in short order, is considered rude, as it interferes with the limits of iNat’s notification system. Perhaps they are unaware of that.
But it is also fine if you feel harassed to flag such behavior for a Moderator to address, I think. Better to hand it off than let it dim your light.
95,000 identifications is amazing. Thank you. Sorry I did not understand before.
This seems like an upsetting circumstance, but you can’t change other people if they’re not doing what may be right.
I’ve seen one ob where a new user felt certain that he knew springtails better than me and two other major springtail ID’ers, and continuously was putting another ID on his ob, completely unsure of what he should put. He seemed quite upset that we disagreed with his original ID, so I kept receiving notification after notification that he added a new comment or ID. Not all were very nice.
He seemed to think we were trying to make things hard for him.
So I explained that we were all trying our best to help others with their observations, and that there was no hostility involved. He replied with “I understand”. He never did change his ID again, but I do hope that he will be more receptive in the future.
Whether or not you decide to keep ID’ing is of course your personal choice, but I think you do a very good job at it.
@mkanimallover you know I will ALWAYS ID your beautiful photos from your special wild spot in this world. And thank you for patiently IDing mine. One day you will teach me my turtles and bugs! :)
Just to be clear, I added ONE ID and only responded I think twice to repeated @s. It is frustrating when people don’t accept disagreement. And your response clarifies for me that that is primarily what felt off about this situation. People are allowed to ID. And the process will play out.
I’m fine with disagreement. But mobbing is something any birder is familiar with. And it’s not comfortable for predators . . . or IDers. I will reread your comment a few more times and consider carefully. And if my @s ever get to be too much for you, please know I’m happy to wait for other turtle and bug experts. :)
P.S. I think I found another Map Turtle!
I don’t think you should let one or two bad experiences put you off IDing.
It’s a little unclear to me whether these excessive @mentions were deleted after you saw them or if you got notifications but found them already deleted when you checked. If the latter, it could have been a glitch in the system. Perhaps the user accidentally posted the same comment several times because they were getting the “failed to save” message. If each @mention was part of a unique comment, then I agree tagging the same person several times in a row (without getting a response from them between) is poor etiquette. However, I think this points at impatience or obsessive compulsiveness more than anything else. It’s a bit mind boggling to me that they were even checking whether you had responded that many times in a few hours.
I don’t see a problem with the part about tagging others to weigh in, although if both the tagger and the people being tagged are new users, I would sort of suspect school children getting classmates to blindly back them up.
Thank you for your kind and wise response. I think I should re-read and comment. It’s been some time, and I can do so in a considered manner.
And thank you for understanding. Harassment is not a matter of kind but degree. Disagreement is fine and should be encouraged. It’s when @s are (I hope) patiently, courteously, and honestly addressed, and it doesn’t stop that it starts to feel out of line.
One phone call is not harassment. Multiple phone calls indicate there is a problem on the other end that is becoming a problem for the recipient. Sigh. Thank you for listening and sharing your thoughts They are greatly appreciated.
Thank you, @roadside_rambler. They were deleted after I saw them. They clearly went through, but I appreciate you raising that possibility. We should always first consider glitches or honest mistakes.
There were multiple comments directed at me, and I think two rounds of multiple recruitment @ss (to which I didn’t respond because they were clearly not directed at me). I’m sorry to be vague, but the user deleted the comments, so I can’t refresh my memory—I waited a bit to address this issue to be sure it wasn’t a case of pique or hurt feelings on my part. I just remember thinking my goodness! This person needs to calm down! And feeling quite harassed. And, more important, and that is what led to this eventual post, hoping that other naturalists don’t feel similarly harassed.
What I love about iNaturalist and what I will always seek to protect in my interactions with people about nature is the community / democratic process. Courtesy and respect matter, I would argue even more than any one ID.
I’m often asked to be an expert by nonbirders, and it usually involves questions like “Is this bird a (usually spectacular rarity that nonbirders will be more familiar with).” I could say, “No, it’s not. That’s not possible. I know so many birders! I’ll have them all call you to tell you you’re wrong.” I would definitely say, “I can ask my friend so-and-so if she has any ideas. She is the state expert on that taxon. I don’t think it’s that bird (and here’s why), but she might have some ideas, and anything’s possible.” (For birds, it almost always is.) I don’t know if that makes sense to you, but that is the issue for me here. Again, a matter of degree not kind.
All the pieces of this are OK, but the totality is harassment and not OK at all. Reminds me of an incident where students were required to post observations and they mis ID’d each other’s observations. Lots of observations with seriously wrong ID’s. A regular identifier recruited more identifiers to counter the student ID’s. The students called in more friends to counteract the new identifications. It became a contest. Finally iNaturalist staff was called in. They contacted the teacher and shut down the observations. Fortunately these events are rare, but they happen.
That I would flag for bad behaviour next time (and screenshots if they are liable to delete the evidence). I might @mention someone again if other activity brings me back to an obs. But. 6 months, or a year later.
And I have learnt, from courteous comments, to think about the notification burden on kind taxon specialists / identifiers. Some of them must be swimming in hundreds of notifications. Every. Day. Then the excess racks up !
I would document the notifications from that person relating to that observation and leave a message there:
“Please do not tag me 10 times in one day”
Another option is to ask the moderators to have a talk to that person.
I’m that bombing user sometimes. I do it in observations where ID is obviously wrong, and the identifiers who added it don’t respond to requests to change/withdraw it. In that situation I ask several people who I know are active on iNat and experienced in that taxon to help and ID. I could leave the observation as it is (sometimes even RG) but it’s somehow frustrating for me to know that it’s IDed wrong.
I think I will address it now that I’ve calmed down a bit. Distance and time help. Thank you for sharing your wisdom and perspective.
And I rarely @experts either, and for the same reason. I hope they at least have the ability to opt out of that Top Identifiers group.
Those are wise words, and will do in the future. They had removed them by the time I’d calmed down. Perhaps they’d calmed down and thought better of it as well.
I guess I just wanted to put a name to it and make others aware as they interact with other users. To me it reads as a form of harassment and is not ok. Thanks for listening and sharing your thoughts.
I am definitely someone who can be a bombing user, but I do hold myself to a code of conduct. These the rules I follow, in no particular order.
- Do not tag previous users. Being on the receptive end of a wrong id, sometimes it’s embarrassing to realize that you messed up, especially over a taxon you consider your “specialty”. A direct @ tag might discourage a user from changing their id, and might even get them to dig their heels in further.
- Leave the bombing on a comment, not an id. When I do tag others to make an input, I make sure it’s in a comment, not an id. I do this because I almost never open up id notifications when I go onto iNat, but a comment notification is something I will check out. I also do this as a subtle nod to previous identifiers to take a second look without directly tagging them.
- Tag only top identifiers. I strive for an unbiased opinion, so I also ensure to tag top identifiers instead of people I think would support my id.
- Tag # of identifiers equal to discussion. I generally only tag other users when the observation is RG at the species, I think it was misidentified as after my id has been submitted (so at least 3-1 community vote). And I tag users equivalent to the number of supporting ids for the wrong species (at min 3 additional users).