An ID provided by two people has a greater appearance of certainty than an ID provided by one person. The appearance of certainty, then, is more likely to exceed one’s actual certainty. This is a reasonable thing to consider in the context of IDs as communication—there’s more going on than simply “correct or incorrect”.
3 Likes
I can’t see how this is different from making an ID yourself that someone later agrees with. The outcome is identical.
And yet the correctness of the ID would remain unaffected. So if the observation went to GBIF, it would not be incorrect (which was the specific point in your original post that I was addressing).
Well, I couldn’t (and in fact still can’t) relate what you’re saying to my understanding of how community identification works, or how citizen science works, or more generally how any kind of shared effort works. Witholding a valid contribution seems defeatist to me. Nothing is set in stone on either iNat or GBIF. In the long-run (sometimes in the very long run) things tend work out right - just so long as everyone continues doing their bit.
1 Like
Well, sure - that’s how community identification works. We all try to contribute what we individually consider to be a correct ID in the expectation that our combined efforts will tend to be worth more (in the long-run) than what we could achieve alone - i.e. there’s always potential for the sum of the parts to be greater than the whole. This is precisely why I think it seems contradictory to withold an ID that you have good reason to believe is correct. After all, it’s not just your ID - it’s ours as well.
Again, it’s not just correctness but communication of the level of evidence.
1 Like
Identification is not 0-1 thing. There is always possibility of error, even in museum collections there are misidentified specimens. But there is difference between IDing “because the specimen looks like species X on the photos in the internet” and “because I checked the diagnostic traits but my books where I checked possibly don’t cover all the rare species of this particular area)”. In the latter case, one might decide that it’s sufficient to say it’s species X but would like confirmation from someone (this is why for RG more than one ID is possible, or?). If someone blindly agrees then there is no confirmation, in fact, and you get the only responsible for the identification.
7 Likes
If you don’t make an ID, you’re not communicating anything (i.e. you’re not contributing to the community ID).
2 Likes
You’re quoting me out of context. I was replying to another poster who said they would make no ID at all purely because they fear that someone else might blindly agree with them. So there really is no possibility of error in this particular case, because no ID would be suggested. Imagine what would happen if everyone on the site adopted this policy. In the worst-case scenario, it could result in an interminable mexican stand-off, where no one wants to make the first ID for fear of the consequences.
If you’re referring to me, I didn’t say that - you are misquoting me.
I just said I would hold off on a species level ID ( e.g. offer a genus level ID or coarser ).
3 Likes
That’s why part of me loves and a part of me hates the “Complex X…” groups.
I love them because it lets me put a species with extremely close relatives in a nice box smaller than genus (like those darn Halysidota tessellaris who are so common but cannot be taken to species), BUT I hate it because when I sort my observations by species, the “Complex” things are excluded from that set of observations.
Case in point I was looking for a species of moth and was surprised to see I had so few observations of that species when on my species tab. Then when I went to the observations tab I had a ton of them under “Complex…” headings. I don’t think “complex” is seen at the species level because it’s technically somewhere between genus and species
3 Likes
You replied to @sbushes who said “I am more confident with a species level ID if I know the observer won’t blindly agree.”. I may be wrong in my interpretation but I understood his statement that when he’s not completely sure of ID then he’s less willing to ID when there is a risk of “blind agreement”. Not that he bases his identification only on the other’s behaviour and risk of “blind agreement”, IDing only in situations when he sees no risk of it.
edit: I suppose that the risk of “blind agreement” can be sometimes quantified, when one IDs several observations of a given observer and remembers that observer X usually agrees with other’s IDs and observer Y doesn’t
4 Likes
Well, yeah. The concern is that a particular communication would be misleading. You avoid that by not communicating it.
5 Likes
The mental math is something like: rate at which observer agrees with IDs of others / accuracy rate of IDs the observer makes on their own. Bigger number, higher probability of blind agreement.
1 Like
A mexican stand-off in which everything is stuck at genus forever. Someone has to make that move. And when they do,
I agree! The complexes can be very helpful but can also be kind of annoying for the reasons you mentioned. Also, complexes are rarely offered as an option by the computer model. There could definitely be some tweaks made to the complex category because I definitely think it can be a useful tool.
1 Like
I go with “bold” IDs and sometimes get them wrong.
I think these observations end up looking less aesthetically pretty since withdrawn IDs don’t flow nicely from higher-broader to narrower-specific like correctly identified observations, but they do often generate lots of useful and interesting comments. This is why there’s a huge overlap between my mistakes and my favorites. Granted, I’m not a professional and don’t have a reputation to worry about, so maybe that’s a factor or maybe this is Cunningham’s Law at work?
I hope people don’t just agree with the initial ID, but I think everyone does this to some degree. For example, in this one, I suggested the wrong ID and it got several more agrees before I tagged a few more identifiers since my initial ID felt off. Maybe one of these biases is at work here: anchoring, priming, and/or recency?
4 Likes
I find complexes often difficult to get to pop up in the suggestion box too, which is annoying to try to remember exactly how it was worded and type the whole thing out. I use them fairly often for a few things, half of them pop up fine, other half don’t.
I just made a for certain ID - countering a juniper-apple gal rust with Eastern Red Bat. This is my fav blindly-following-CV mistake I have found so far. (I think it just saw blobby reddyorange hanging from a juniper sp. and didn’t find the clear wing and markings, plus bat shape not stringy shape. I’m shocked someone blindly followed that though…I have a hard time believing someone doesn’t know what a bat is, or thinks an clearly animal is fungi?)
But - that highlights why i can be slower with a species level ID…this was a student in a group of students, often who get these for school projects and auto-confirm each other. Had I not caught it, it probbly would have gone to RG as the completly wrong kingdom.
1 Like
Anyone got a trick to make ‘genus’ pop up?
I have to pick the wrong species from the list, delete the species bit, then finally I get the popup for the genus I want.
Some observers I learn to recognise for accepting iNat’s Pretty Sure, which is wrong.
Followed by 2 IDs from my trusted identifiers - then I support them against Wrong.
I will leave a comment or a link rather than an active ID if the leaderboards is limited to single figures. Don’t want to appear there. But for common species I can be more confident.
@vreinkymov Cunningham’s Law - a better name for my ‘hook line and sinker’
1 Like
No, choosing not to add a species ID does not automatically lead to a standoff because:
My threshold of uncertainty and your threshold of uncertainty may not be the same. One person may still be learning that particular species; another may already have more detailed knowledge and be more confident distinguishing similar organisms in the genus. No standoff, just different levels of knowledge and experience.
Also consider that a suggestion made in a comment (the scenario described by the original poster) rather than being entered as an ID still conveys useful information about what the observation could be. It merely does not have the same consequences for the data attached to the observation and does not directly contribute to the observation becoming “research grade”.
It happens that such comments can sometimes have the effect of helping give other IDers more confidence and/or starting a conversation that leads to a more specific ID – if I am considering a particular species ID but am not certain (see: still learning; also: bees are hard) and I see that another knowledgeable IDer had the same thought I did, it may give me a push to add the ID. Or else I might note some of the concrete reasons why I am considering that species and ruling out others, and tag the other commenter to see if we can work through the possibilities to justify a species ID. No standoff here either – quite the opposite.
Sometimes it also happens that the observer will enter a species ID in response to me tentatively suggesting it in a comment. Generally the context does not lead me to suspect these are informed IDs (e.g.: the original ID was broad or obviously incorrect, and the new ID is placed quickly, before the observer could have had time to research the species). In which case, the comment has also served its purpose: it has communicated an idea which can subsequently be reviewed by more knowledgeable persons without having the effect of immediately making the ID “research grade” and taking it out of the “needs ID” pile (as would have happened if I had entered the tentative ID as an ID instead of a comment).
9 Likes
If i cant get it to pop up i go to suggestions tab, find one the right genus, and copy paste the genus in exactly.
I find a five string of characters usually gets it in auto suggestions but i am not a strong speller so it may or may not work.
I do find it works decent though on common name if you can remember that, which for me is way easier than scientific to spell. I feel for genus and family I have best luck using common name to get it to pop up.
2 Likes
Plus iNat is NOT forgiving with scientific name spelling. I wish it had a little wiggle room to tell “Coelo” from “Caelo” or “Celo”, especially if you continue typing the species name
3 Likes