Has anyone else encountered this sort of behaviour from other users?
There is a user who often identifies the same observations as me. There profile says nothing about them but are very knowledgeable, so I presume they are experienced and a full-grown adult.
On one occasion this user misidentified an observation. I corrected them and everyone else on the observation agreed with me except this user, who clung to their incorrect ID.
Over the next few days, I got notifications on observations where I had made incorrect IDs, with this user agreeing with the correct identifications even though the observations were already research grade. It’s clear they were searching through by IDs for any wrong ones I made so they could shove it in my face. I was considering doing something about this but then it stopped.
Recently, this user made another wrong ID. It was a somewhat obvious one, but a mistake an expert could make if tired or distracted. I corrected them, and instead of agreeing with me, they completely deleted their ID and erased their presence from the observation.
I also have another user who I know is an adult and a professional. This user refuses to agree with any correction I make on their IDs, and their original ID will sit unchanged even when numerous others agree with me and none agree with them.
It’s just so disappointing that people behave like this on a site like this. Can anyone else relate?
Well, there are petty and childish people in real life, so no reason why they shouldn’t be here on iNat.
I try to prevent this by being nice when correcting someone by adding a comment in the lines of “Maybe it could be this species? Is seems like it has black stripes in this picture” or something like that.
I can imagine this is frustrating but as long as their aren’t verbally aggressive toward you or don’t do something which affects iNat functioning (like, purposefully giving wrong IDs), and they only “fight” with the described behaviours, there is probably nothing to do? In the first case, the user just identifies observations - nothing wrong with it, even if pointless, in the second one - it is a bit annoying when people delete their IDs in such situations but some do, and at least the incorrect ID was no longer present, and in the last case - well, I think that everybody has right to make mistakes sometimes and even stick to them - that’s what the “voting system” on iNat is for (there is different story with users who notoriously identified incorrectly because they don’t have appropriate knowledge to do this, but here it’s not that case).
I should maybe add that I did in each case explain why I believed them to be incorrect. In one case, there was not enough information in the photos to determine the ID to their level of accuracy. They made no attempt to defend their ID, they just stuck to it even when it was clearly unjustified.
But yeah, I don’t think there is anything I can do about it, but I for some reason expected better, maybe because all the academics I know in real life are better than this.
Keep in mind, also, that they may not always notice that their ID is the disagreeing one. If they do a lot of IDs, it is easy to miss some notifications. I try to withdraw, change, or explain (depending on the situation) my IDs when there is a disagreeing one added, but I regularly stumble across old ones where several people disagreed, it’s now research grade at the new ID, and I never noticed.
It’s important to note that the ID of the observer may not depend on a photograph, so although it may be impossible for others to confirm from the photo alone, it may be perfectly valid for the observer to stick to it. If the photo is evidence of their ID being incorrect, that is a different story.
Oh there are quite a few users who behave like this (and i’m not talking about people who do not know better - it’s the ones who know that they were wrong and deliberately refuse to do anything).
Make a mental list of such users and be prepared to tag others if you see that any of them have left an incorrect ID
Similar concept but had someone post a flatfish recently that was a textbook winter flounder specimen. They posted it as a windowpane flounder. No big deal, a couple other identifiers and I identify it correctly as a winter. Until the person comments something along the lines of “you’re all wrong I catch these all the time and the person at the aquarium even said its a windowpane”.
Another identifier kindly explained the physical differences and how they might distinguish the two species, rather than just listening to someone else’s ID. They then responded with “well I catch them every day and you don’t so there”.
At this point what am I supposed to do? There’s no logical reasoning behind the identification that will appease the person and getting emotional about it isn’t worthwhile.
I’ve encountered several very sophisticated teenagers on iNat, so I wouldn’t assume the person has to be an adult–though of course an adult could behave as you describe as well.
I think the only thing you can do is tag enough other competent identifiers that the incorrect ID becomes a maverick. If the observer wishes to keep their incorrect ID, they can choose to opt out of the community taxon. It probably isn’t worth your time to try to convince a stubborn person they are incorrect.
I think it’s best to give people the benefit of the doubt in these situations. I don’t see anything inherently wrong.
I can see the connection but this doesn’t have to be true. They could just be adding extra confirmation to observations to solidify the correct ID. Have you checked if they ID’ed other observations that you haven’t ID’ed? They are just ID’ing observations, after all.
I agree this isn’t preferable behavior but it’s better than letting the incorrect ID stay. At least they are trying to help. Although it may seem dishonest, they may not know any better.
There can be many, many reasons for this. Maybe they don’t check their notifications, or didn’t realize their ID was corrected. Or, they could still believe in their ID. Nothing wrong with sticking to an identification you believe is correct.
I think you should add an ID if you believe the current one is incorrect. Adding a comment is helpful too, but they might just ignore it. You can put the information in the notes of your ID
No one is required to justify an ID, although it would be nice. In this case, the observer may not have seen that their ID is wrong, or maybe they just don’t really care. If the erroneous ID has been corrected, why should anyone care about whether or not the ID stays?
I saw that thread. Don’t think you need to do anything else. Just let the community ID overtake the maverick.
It would be nice if iNat gave more weight to people who are truly knowledgeable about certain taxa, but it isn’t set up that way now, so even the most ignorant or obstinate person has the same voice in an ID as an expert.
Just a general note (not applicable to your case really): But it’s important if you have special knowledge or experience to put that in your bio, so others are aware your ID is soundly based in experience/knowledge. I find it frustrating when people ID one of my observations, but don’t have anything in their bio, so I can’t tell if it’s an expert or a novice.
somewhere, i think iNat guides people to assume that others mean well… or something like that. i think it’s good advice for interacting online in general, and i find that if you take that sort of perspective, it will lead to a healthier existence than if you assume the opposite.
In my experience, it seems to be mainly the experts and academics that struggle with the social side of the site. I don’t think they usually mean to be rude or short or upset people, but I think sometimes them knowing they’re correct already makes them less patient when justifying or explaining their IDs or comments. That’s just a theory, but it’s something I’ve noticed among some of the older professionals on the sites with lots of experience. I think using the site can be a lot to balance depending on your strong suits. It can be difficult to appease everybody. People interpret things all sorts of ways.
I do run into people that tend to have a lot of questionable ID’s, and some of these people don’t respond when I tag them for a rereview, but in those cases I just tag in other people to flip it.
Currently, I only have three maverick ID’s, and even though on two of them there are some excellent identifiers whose opinion I respect that disagree with me. Maybe in future I’ll look again and wonder what I was thinking, but currently I think mine are correct. That will happen occasionally.
Maybe, but is it also possible that they were just going through a lot of observations? I routinely check all observations whether RG or not, especially when finishing a dataset.
Technically, experts opinion does have more weight. I’ve had many times where multiple people all agree on an inaccurate ID, I come in and put the correct ID, and people thank me for the correction, I do the same with my observations. Putting your expertise in your profile and cranking out ID’s gets your name noted. And more importantly, noted by other experts: when I have someone obstinately sticking to a wrong ID, I can tag in 2 or 3 other experts (and I know who to ask), to get it moved.
The distribution of personality types in academia is more or less the same as in any other subset of humanity, with the expected exceptions that follow from an educational process that strongly selects for self-confidence (warranted or otherwise).
I sympathise. I recently had to deal with a strong reaction from someone who was upset that I had “exposed them” by correcting (I thought politely) one of their IDs. Bear in mind that intentions and tone are often impossible to judge online. In addition to the usual challenges of communication and fragile egos, there can be cultural differences, language barriers, people might be having a bad day, etc. Your interpretation might not be accurate here, and they might have judged your prior polite corrections as having a tone that you did not intend. As others have said, best to assume good intentions and give others the benefit of the doubt.