Some search results for identification list in the forum:
General
Is there a way to get a csv list or spreadsheet of identifications by user?
Feature request
Link to top identifiers of that taxon, not observations of that taxon
…referencing this other one, with more votes:
Search and filter identifications
yep that’s what I meant by
(tho I meant observation taxon actually)
Yup, but there’s no way I know to show results without those taxa, it still shows enough to see if it’s an expert.
I have only read some of this thread, but I would really like this feature since I often get tagged on observations of Ichneumonidae, even though the only genus I know well is Megarhyssa.
This link is great. The count appears to include subspecies and varieties too (I’m not complaining).
And thank you bouteloua! You impressed me with the diversity of conifer taxa I had identified in North America!
might you put that on your profile info - then people will know for next time?
It used to be, but had no effect, unfortunately.
@matthewvosper and @bouteloua – Thanks for explaining that the list is based on the community ID, not the ID I put on the observation. When I first saw my list for Apiaceae (carrot family) identifications, I was appalled. I don’t know how to identify all those species! It’s good to know the list includes observations for which I supplied a coarser identification, often just Apiaceae.
Just adding … it can be misleading to assume that a top identifier of a species actually knows how to ID them. I know the traits of every species I identify. But there are many observers out there who think they are polite by agreeing to an experts opinion. And if this observer happens to take a lot of pics of a species, and everytime confirms the ID given out of politeness, he might end up as the top identifier of a species without knowing the traits.
Then there’s this weird notion of being overly modest. Just a few days ago I found out that there is an expert who reviews every observation of his field all the time, but only ever leaves an ID if the identification was wrong or wasn’t RG yet. So you won’t find this user in many stats, but (s)he’s one of the best …
No, those stats are nice and sometimes helpful, but in the end you’ll have to tag 'em and find out who knows what for yourself, just as Marina suggested. It’s a part of the ID game.
That’s a great expert.
No doubt there are people high on those leaderboards that aren’t the most knowledgeable in identifying that species, or the members of that larger taxon group. In the worst case I knew of, here in the NW corner of the US, one person got high on those leaderboards of identifiers of plant species of this area, agreeing to every ID he came across that wasn’t yet “Research Grade”, and improved his accuracy rate by following all of the top local botanists. Then, as other identifiers might have filtered for “needs ID” observations to examine, those local top botanists then both got fewer people examining their observations, and got less “peer review” of their ID’s of those observations. This NW US identifier described what he did as a community service, to take all of your ID’s to “Research Grade”.
I went through a good number of his ID’s to illustrate how he had created iNaturalist “Research Grade” records for substantial local populations of species that weren’t recorded here by the herbaria more than maybe once or twice, if that. One way he did this was by taking series of observations that had bad ID’s for some non-local species, that were initially given by iNaturalist’s artificial intelligence, and that local botanists wouldn’t confirm, and make them all “Research Grade”. Artificial Intelligence then learned that these species were “seen nearby”! He even sent the first iNaturalist record in the world of one Rubus species in Britain to “Research Grade” after the observer mis-clicked to get the initial iNaturalist record for that species. (He didn’t restrict his ID’s to the NW US.) He then became the top identifier in the world of that species! I sent my case to “help@inaturalist.org”, and his account was suspended!
Wow, that’s a crazy story! Thanks for sharing.
I am ok with top identifyers who are not the most knowledgeable (since in a few cases I am one), it only goes to show that some experts don’t have the time to go through all the observations. Anyway, I would expect a certain level of accuracy, like knowing the traits, knowing possible doppelganger species, knowing the real experts for tagging. But just agreeing to everything as a community service … made me cringe.
I thought I’d add this, about “top identifiers”. I just got messaged by someone who noted that I was “top identifier” in the Pacific Northwest (North America) for a genus of lichens, and wanted to know what keys I used for identifying them. While I directed them to the book I use (not so much for the keys) - Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest, which may indeed help them, I explained that I didn’t think I was the best at identifying that genus, but that a substantial part of the reason I am “top IDer” is that I spend a high percentage of my time on iNaturalist, while others, that may know the Peltigeras better, may keep busy with more other things! They are probably out in the field more! The amount of time spent on iNaturalist is certainly a large part of the equation of how high one gets on those identifier “leaderboards”!
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.