I apologize. I was wrong. (The reported lack of responses was what led me to the error, well, that plus I was really grumpy that day for reasons having nothing to do with iNaturalist.)
Thanks, no worries at all.
My apologies as well. I didnât realise (although I should have) that things were more complex than they seemed. Your replies to what you considered mis identifications were thorough and polite. I cannot comment on their correctness - I can hardly identify the birds in my region, good picture or not. Although I find the idea of sub species suspect, I donât encounter it much in moth identification. As far as Iâm concerned, with these examples, you have done what I hope most identifiers do!
What you wrote here makes a lot of sense. What you commented on the relevant posts at least wasnât clear to the reader. Perhaps it would have been useful to write something like, âThis bird is clearly a Song Sparrow, but I think that it canât be identified as Merrilâs Song Sparrow from the photo. In fact, there is reason to doubt that Merrilâs holds together well enough to deserve subspecies status.â And then if youâre pushing it to âPerching birdsâ status explain why youâve done that (peculiarities of iNaturalist rating system), and that youâll be glad to agree to a Song Sparrow identification once the subspecies identifications have been removed. Thatâs a lot to write each time, but I recommend a method I use; I have a file of paragraphs I use when changing Timothy (grass) or Teasel identifications, and I copy and paste.
This is just my opinion:
@jmaley Any ID made with the belief in what you are identifying is a valid ID. There will be a lot that are âwrongâ, because there are a lot of observers and identifiers that donât have a good grasp of what is involved in making a âcorrectâ ID⌠but they are making the IDs with the knowledge and information they have available to them at that time, and so they are valid identifications as well!
This seems to be a common misconception in iNat, that the Community ID either IS RIGHT or IS WRONG, or that it NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. I donât think it does⌠what I think needs to happen, is that the community needs to be educated as to what would be an appropriate ID to make. Forgetting for a moment the problematic question presented when making a coarser ID (the explicit disagreements), any identifier is going to be armed with a certain amount of knowledge, whether that be from having written the paper describing the species or just âUncle Tom told me thatâs what these areâ. They hold this level of knowledge in isolation, and as far as they are concerned they are right with how they ID. Theoretically, we all put our IDs as per our personal knowledge, and the system calculates a community ID that best represents what the COMMUNITY thinks. If the calculation is based on the IDs made by the community, then it follows that if you think the community ID needs to be changed, you need to change how those other identifiers are formulating their IDs!
We donât need to be having arguments, or calling names or attacking identifiers for identifying as they see fit. What needs to happen is to encourage more dialogue, and help people understand the complexities in making certain IDs. Even if itâs just a link to a page that explains well the difficulties. But sometimes making âcontroversial identificationsâ can be the stimulus needed to get that dialogue to happen!
A somewhat sideline issue here is whether it matters that the observation is âNeeds IDâ or âResearch Gradeâ⌠seriously, I donât think it does. Any scientific investigation on iNat data relying solely on that âResearch Gradeâ status for data validity is in my opinion instantly suspect. It would be comparable to studies into whether smoking causes cancer by asking people on the street what they think! There would be the need to interrogate that data pool for validity and inherent flaws, which wouldnât necessarily disqualify it as useful, it just puts constraints on how and when it should be used.
@birdwhisperer You make reference to the âNo, this is not so and soâŚâ question, which to me is at the heart of a lot of these arguments over explicit disagreements. The question asks one thing (Do you think there is enough evidence), but then the impact is something different (Identifier thinks it is not that taxon). In the majority of cases, when challenged the identifier will state categorically that they do not explicitly disagree that it is that species, just that they think there is not enough evidence to be sure. In many cases, they will admit that it is highly likely that species, but again, canât be sure! This problem is going to continue to arise, and cause rifts through the community until it is resolved one way or the other. If we are to EXPLICITLY DISAGREE WHEN WE SEE A LACK OF EVIDENCE, then the identification needs to have that âJoe disagrees itâs a fishâ removed, because that starts the arguments. If, on the other hand, we are to ONLY EXPLICITLY DISAGREE WHEN WE SEE EVIDENCE IT IS NOT THAT SPECIES (which is what I personally understand the explicit disagreements to be for) then the question needs to be changed accordingly. Even just a statement from iNat to indicate which use-case is correct, would help resolve the arguments over these quicker.
This has already been answered by staff and is clearer in the wording in the pop-up than the misleading text attached to the IDs. Explicitly disagreeing based on a lack of evidence is a normal use case for the âorange buttonâ. More on that topic here: https://www.inaturalist.org/blog/25514-clarifying-ancestor-disagreements and https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/change-wording-used-by-the-system-when-downgrading-an-observation-to-an-higher-level-taxa/3862/107
@kiwifergus thanks for your input but I couldnât disagree more. I think the idea that there is no such thing as a correct identification is absurd and coddling. I believe that this encourages, or does nothing to discourage, seriously bad behavior. I think you overlooked one of my main points in the initial thread and this thread: itâs fine if users do this occasionally but not tens of thousands of times. I periodically make incorrect identifications and I always appreciate it when somebody corrects my mistake, but when somebody is going through and massively altering the data with identifications that are not supported by evidence then it is a problem. I agree that a study relying solely on iNat data would be suspect, but if iNaturalist wants scientists using their data for research then they have an interest in providing the best data possible. Allowing problems to persist affecting huge numbers of observations in the interest of âtrainingâ potentially untrainable identifiers is not acceptable in my opinion. Iâve also heard the argument about the top priority of iNaturalist as connecting people to nature, but it is also a citizen science portal providing observations to one of the largest natural history observation databases in the world, so maximizing data quality should be of high interest to everybody.
Unfortunately that is the plus and the minus of iNat. Lots of contributors, both as submitters and reviewers, and a huge range of variation in experience and knowledge (and opinion) about what can be discerned from a photograph.
In a research museum, species IDs of difficult-to-identify specimens are typically made by experts in those taxa. Those IDs might or might not be accompanied by annotations on the specimen label indicating why that ID was made. Sometimes the reputation of the IDer is enough (not that an expert is infallible), at least until the next expert comes along. The museum doesnât invite anyone and everyone off the street to offer their opinions. But, in essence, iNat does. So weâll always have such disagreements for some records. Which isnât necessarily a bad thing since many attempts to determine a taxonomic ID involve a lot of back-and-forth, even occasionally among the experts, and â letâs face it â some records will not be adequately resolved for everyone.
This is the somewhat split-personality nature of iNat that might never be fully resolved. Is it mostly about connecting people to nature, with sound science being a secondary consideration? Or is it a major database for documenting life on this planet, with scientific applications? I think itâs trying to be both, in which case it is used differently by different participants. That leads to some tension, which I think is reflected in this thread.
There is, of course, a compromise solution. Say, allowing individuals with proven taxonomic bona fides (like @jmaley) to have a greater say in the identification process through some sort of âReputation Systemâ. Every time this suggestion is brought up, thereâs a handful of vocal users to shout it down⌠but implementing it would solve a lot of problems on here and undoubtedly encourage more participation from researchers.
From the iNat staff:
â ⌠but it is also a citizen science portal providing observations to one of the largest natural history observation databases in the world, so maximizing data quality should be of high interest to everybody.â
I believe this should be the main purpose of iNat. I am a biologist and came to iNat after using eBird for many years because I wanted the eBird experience with other taxa that interest me. I have been surrised to find that iNat does not prioritise data such that it can be reliably used in the way that eBird data is regularly used.
It would be helpful if all suggested initial IDs from we users, and suggested disagreements/changes were required to give some reason for the identification. Just saying âI think this is Xâ is inadequate without adding âbecauseâ to it.
WhileI am at it - lets get rid of zoo observations and domestic pets.
@joe_fish - I think the idea has merit, although thereâd be a lot of challenges in implementing it, assuming it even got out of committee. But I think iNat has to make some decisions about what it wants to be.
everyone,
This conversation has strayed from the topicâs initial post and is entering into areas of discussion that are already in progress elsewhere on the forum. For a nice selection (thereâs more if you search for terms or phrases like, âdisagreementâ or âzoo animals.â) see here:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/choosing-not-to-identify-subspecies/699
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/what-inaturalist-is-for/2995/38
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/rename-research-grade-discussion-and-polls/590
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/change-wording-used-by-the-system-when-downgrading-an-observation-to-an-higher-level-taxa/3862/26
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/identification-etiquette-on-inaturalist-wiki/1503
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/zoo-animals-why-are-they-permitted/4707
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/animals-in-temporary-captivity/7072/2
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/offer-the-ability-to-choose-whether-to-hard-disagree-or-not-to-the-next-finest-level-that-the-current-identifications-support-when-one-disagrees-with-the-current-community-id/3921
https://forum.inaturalist.org/search?q=reputation%20system (a search results page for the many places a reputation system has been mentioned)
Iâm setting a timer to close this topic in a few hours. If you have any topic-specific last thoughts or responses chime in soon.
Thanks, all.
Communication! Better communication could have headed this particular problem off before it came to involve hundreds of specimens. When in doubt (or when youâre not in doubt, but obviously the readers arenât getting it), explain more!
âIâve seen it with two accounts in particular, both of young users who canât possibly identify many of the observations theyâve identified, either because of poor quality photos or lack of identifying features. Both observers focused on birds but also âidentifiedâ other taxa. One has almost 57,000 identifications and the other has over 14,000 identifications.â
-@jmaley on his topic of âOverzealous Identificationâ
I thought Iâd bring this up to offer an apology and to explain how @jmaley and I have had the same common goal, did it in different ways and obviously had the same feelings of anger or frustration towards the other user.
Iâm taking the hint that Iâm the second user you referenced in that thread. You also stated, âwhere it would appear a user has gone through and just agreed with the identification of every observation that isnât research grade for certain taxa.â
Is that statement true in the case of me? Yes and no. Yes because I do look up certain taxon (or my local state) and I identify what I can, but I donât just open the page and go click, click, click the agree button. I take my time looking at each photo and then agreeing but if I do like a page (so 30 observations) a day, if someone checks the taxon each week thatâs 210 (probably less because I do not agree with all the observations) observations that a user might say âhmm, are you sure?â
And I look up these taxon because (1) Iâm really familiar with that species, (2) I learned how to identify the species thru iNat, example being the Carolina Grasshopper, and thereâs not enough identifiers to check up on the hundreds or thousands of observations that need ids and (3) because of iNat, I can at least give a general id for local observations because I probably have seen it already.
So now that you know my intentions and I know yours, it seems @jmaley that we have the same goal, to provide accurate information on iNaturalist but our methods of doing this are not aligned. And I guess you can say that I get on the defensive often and I personally blame that on big name local birders who have harassed or shut me down in the past because Iâm a kid/college student and theyâve been birding for like 30 years or so, they canât possibly be wrong. And thatâs what I like about iNaturalist, because I get to talk to awesome people like some people in this thread because they correct with the benefit to help build up newer users instead of breaking them down. I really donât mind if you correct me on sightings or identifications, all Iâm asking for is a little explanation so that way I get better as a birder.
How do you interpret my statement that:
to mean that there is no such thing as a correct identification?
I donât think it has been made clear at all, and if anything supports my point of view. From that first link you give, the case I am talking about is exampled:
What are Ancestor Disagreements?
So what are Ancestor Disagreements? If one person adds an identification of one node and another person thinks itâs not that but canât provide an alternative on another branch, they might add an identification of an ancestor of that node. For example, I might add an identification of Seven-spotted Lady Beetle, but you might add an identification of the family lady beetles, which contains that and many other species.
Youâll notice that I bold and italicise the point I am addressing here⌠if you think itâs NOT that species (either you can see evidence or evidence can be inferred) then that is the use-case for explicit disagreement. If you canât see why itâs NOT then I donât think you should be explicitly disagreeing.
The language is clear, it talks about âdisagreeing with the community taxonâ and âthe identification is labeled accordinglyâ, which very much implies that the wording of the identification is correct more-so than the question as asked in the popup. It explains how implicit disagreement was assumed, and that it was a change to become explicit disagreement because the implicit disagreement of an ancestor level ID was problematic in many cases, meaning that you now have to choose whether you think it could or canât be that species when you ID at an ancestor level.
In the use case that I am talking about, the identifiers almost always confirm that they are not saying it CANâT be that species, just that there is not enough evidence to be certain.
[edit]
There is more support for my interpretation further into that first link. There is an image showing the current question as asked, and how it âcould have been wordedâ to more precisely capture how the community taxon was being calculated:
** **
In the case of the explicit disagreements that are causing the arguments, this change in the wording of the question itself would have led to a different choice being made. When asked âis there enough evidence to confirm it is seven spottedâ they would reply âNoâ, and so would select the orange option. If asked âare you disagreeing that it is seven spottedâ they would reply âNoâ, and would select the green option. THIS IS THE SOURCE OF THE CONFUSION THAT LEADS TO THE ARGUMENTS!
Note also that the blog article is largely about the confusion over leading vs branch disagreements (terms as defined in that blog), and doesnât directly address the issue of whether we should be explicitly disagreeing when we canât see evidence to support it NOT being that species, which is where the confusions and arguments are arising.
This topic was automatically closed 3 hours after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.