I’m not sure what to do about a situation. I was identifying plants in my area and encountered one with an ID that made me check the map. The plant was woefully out of place in our area, except for this and another observation. I checked the other one, which was Research Grade, and it wasn’t even visually similar. It had two IDs: the observer and a user from Russia with over 50K identifications. The identifier’s profile says simply “Botanist”.
I looked at the identifier’s other identifications. I was stunned that the person had 2+ pages of IDs in a single day, and not all in the same taxa group. Things like Common Dandelion around the globe. (I don’t think that some of those observations could be IDed to a specific dandelion species from the photos provided, but I’m not sure.) The set of species covered was broad and the locations were all over. And several that I picked at random from North America were obviously incorrect. I didn’t see any in which the identifier provided any comments, although I don’t know if one can check whether they IDed it manually or just Agreed.
For the observations that were clearly misidentified, I suggested another taxon, as is the process. That took them out of Research Grade at least. But there are plants all over North America that I consider questionable. I’m not sure what to do. I won’t post the user’s name but I want to alert someone. If they had misidentified things in a few taxa, that would be easy: message the curators. But there are so many observations in so many taxa.
I will probably send the user a message suggesting politely that they might be more cautious about IDing plants in other locations, but there are still the 50K identification that exist now.
Am I taking this too seriously? I hate to have all those IDs fed into the machine learning program. CV has enough challenges without that.