Broad IDing desired or not?

ID’s also get lost, sometimes they remain as placeholder (probably wrong/ another spelling, common name missing)

1 Like

Some points not already covered:

Someone that is uploading a large amount of observations, such as appears to be happening with that particular project, likely has established a workflow… such as creating filtered searches that rely on the unidentified observations remaining so until they process them. I’m not saying it is right or wrong to do so…

Some users have come from pre-merger platforms where their chosen workflow was workable, but may find that it is no longer workable now that they are under iNaturalist. It’s easy to pre-judge it as rude behaviour, but if they are significantly impacted by loss of functionality through a merger with iNaturalist, then having some understanding of their situation would be more constructive…

If other users are “messing up a process”, then a small amount of effort could be put to finding a way for it not to… such as adding a statement in the descriptton such as:

These are being uploaded as part of a large project (link to project), if you could please refrain from adding IDs to these until we have them all in place, it would be appreciated.
To help clear them from your “ID needed” page, here is a link (link to Identify filter) that just shows all these observations, and you can click “Mark All as Reviewed” to clear them from your ID stream. Thankyou for your consideration!

At least, this is how I see it!


No workflow can justify rude responces, downgrading iders cause they mess your way of things while you can easily do the same thing with url that shows your observations without your id or just your observations higher than particular level.


Well said. On the other hand, the rude guy wasn’t even getting pissy about his own post.

1 Like

Nothing wrong: any ID level is better than “Unknown”, and it means that anyone going through plants in future will be able to see the observations.


I was trying to be gentle before, but I’ll make it more explicit: this thread is about whether broad IDs are desired / allowed.
Going back and forth discussing the behaviour of a particular person in this way is, I think, against the ethos of the Forum. Inappropriate or demeaning comments are to be dealt with since they have no place on iNat, but the Forum is specifically not the place to talk about them. Flags are.
If posters continue going off-topic I’m afraid I’ll have to close this one. There’s plenty of other topics that discuss similar questions.


I’ve taken a look at them myself, and they are not overly rude, to be fair. He says please, it’s clear that it is his own judgement that they are “silly”, but he does go too far in telling another identifier to not do something which is perfectly within acceptable guidelines. His only real crime here is that he has not been clear in why he does not want the coarse level IDs on these observations…

True, but in this case context is important. This is not just about whether coarse IDs are desired or not, because that has been answered already and is already known to the OP. This is about whether it is acceptable for another identifier to ask (tell) another identifier not to make them.

For clarity of the context, the project concerned is an “in memoriam” type of project, and those involved with such projects can feel that a dishonouring is occuring when anything happens on the observations that is “messy”, for want of a better term. I’ll point out that I don’t think iNat is the place to be making “in memoriam” type presentations, I’m just pointing out that it seems to be the case here.

The identifier concerned is entitled to his/her opinions, and as long as they are expressed politely (which I think they are) it just remains to assert to the others involved that he/she is not an authority that can demand such…

1 Like

Seeing how multiple people are complaining about it over time (yes, this time it wasn’t that rude, but not polite either), it doesn’t happen if people don’t feel bad about those comments. I just don’t get why not change something in what you do instead of constantly push away iders, it’s just going on and on. Anyway, I don’t think it’s place to discuss it and OP got the answer they were seeking.

which is why I directed back at him/her :

That is a way, but I don’t see how making many people spend time things they can easily avoid is better than making little effort from observer/uploader side. Like, ider goal is to get rid of unknowns, not to just review them. Why they can’t id them as general group from the start, why unknowns, I have to say no reasoning from that topic about mass uploaders sounds reasonable for me. I’m easily baited for conversation at 6a.m. @trh_blue gonna be mad at me, for real.

1 Like

Any ID that improves an observation is desired, even if it’s just changing an unknown to a kingdom. This user has been rude to me many times as well and he’s completely in the wrong. I recommend going into SettingsRelationships, setting him to muted and then mercifully never interacting with him again.


Please be careful of judging based on past actions. In a court of law it is very careful not to allow jurors to see past actions which might cloud judgement of relevant facts of the case. It is the same here, judge on what is happening now, not what happened in the past.

and same concern for me re: “gonna be mad at me”… :) but I think it is an important issue that everyone is looking at from different angles, and I am just trying to help others see it from all angles :)

Hey folks, @trh_blue was pretty clear above. Closing this now.