I tend to leave comments on…seemingly more of my IDs than people usually do for theirs.
This also lets me explain why I picked some IDs I’m not necessarily sure of. And implies that I may withdraw those IDs if there’s contradicting evidence.
As for other people’s IDs, I think just asking people usually gets some sort of explanation from them.
I’m not sure there’s a good way to automate this – the identifying characteristics of a species can be extremely varied in nature.
Might also have been a placeholder with the binomial.
Once we add an ID, any ID - then iNat helpfully sweeps the placeholder away 
@chugbug111 you will also miss any notes the observer left … this is for the plant, the insect is at obs number …
Ah yes, I’ve not thought about such situations. Non-conforming picture uploads will be flagged by others. and I probably double check on my clicks at a later part of the day or the next day through the notifications.
Hi, just checking that you know it’s possible to withdraw your own ID without agreeing with the alternative suggestion. You can withdraw IDs on the website and, I believe, on the Android app, but not on the iPhone app. This strikes out your original ID, so you’re no longer disagreeing with the new possibly-expert ID, but you don’t have to blindly agree with them either. Another option is to give your own ID to genus level (assuming that both the original computer vision and the new ID are in the same genus), which has a similar effect. Example here: https://uk.inaturalist.org/observations/128963887
Also 3 other ‘Planty’ IDs needed to overturn an I saw the Insect.
I leave an explanation if its a niche organism that not a lot of people ID and I’m disagreeing with their ID. Leucochrysa pavida is an example, CV identifies all debris carrying lacewing larvae the same. If im disagreeing I copy and paste my explanation why I feel its a different species/genus. If its a common organism I usually don’t explain but wouldn’t mind at all explaining if someone asked.
I also leave an explanation on SUPER common ones that I disagree with like American Crows (bumping up to genus since its almost impossible to visually distinguish between American and Fish Crows), but this irritates people so I stopped doing it LOL.
Like when you ask why they suggested something like “Dicots,” you ask them why they went that broad, and they reply that your ID is “totally wrong,” that they disagreed just to get it out of the genus where you had it, but provide no information beyond that. I find that actually less credible than just disagreeing without comment.
I learned there is a block function…i must admit Ive been tempted to block people who have done that to me when i ask why they disagreed and moved something back. I have not, because i know you aren’t supposed to really its for emergency stuff i understand, not someone annoys you.
I have over 1000 observations, done 9000+ for others, clearly state I am a scientist, have a a field photo as my avatar, …and if anything i just politely asked for the reasoning - lets even ignore all the ways one could know I actually do want to know! And to just get the brushoff “cauze its wrong”…
At that point its bs gatekeeping. And knowledge gatekeeping just gets a huge rise out of me. I cant stand it. Its wrong pure and simple
@jasonhernandez74 and @sunguramy in these dissenting cases, were the identifiers experienced users (100s of observations and identifications) or were they maybe users with very low observations and identifications who were trolling?
Not sure abrasiveness necessarily correlates inversely or otherwise with the expertise level of the respondent. Perhaps they were just born that way 
das43, you are absolutely right, it’s very useful. But from an IDer’s POV I’d be reluctant to provide detailed explanations each time I disagreed. They never know when someone is serious about learning such nuances. I’m very fortunate because I have a couple IDers who are open to questions. They send me detailed explanations, but I ask them explicitly for the details. They use scientific nomenclature when describing body parts of the Odonata, other insects, and birds I post. I often don’t know exactly what they are talking about but I look up the terms which helps me learn. I will ask for more information in the comment section of my observation, or I message the person directly. More importantly, once they answer me I let them know how appreciative I am, and that’s exactly the type of information I am looking for as an amateur naturalist.
Both. The experienced user that comes to mind is less overtly abrasive, but often disagrees without comment and even when tagged, never comes back to explain, or sometimes comes back with just a “I don’t think so”. I’ve caught a number of obvious ID mistakes from them where they seemed to just agree with previous ID without looking as I’d expect to know better; and on other hand sometimes they come out of nowhere knowing something super niche and are actually helpful. I call it the Old Stereotypical Scientist Syndrome - most common in old white men, knows weird specific stuff, but seems to fast-ID/work too fast without a care far too often, and can’t be arsed anymore to explain a dang thing - damn young scientists get off my lawn variety xD
I understand being frustrated but let’s steer clear of stereotypes or defining users by race, age, and other attributes they can’t change.
Explanatory ID remarks are always great but I think it’s not realistic to expect identifiers to always add them. If you do find yourself adding the same or similar explanation over and over again, I recommend using a text expander extension for your browser, it’s been a lifesaver for me. I use Auto Text Expander for Firefox but there are a bunch of them.
When dissenting on posts within a genus or between two very similar genus, dissenting comments are very important, and usually can be short and specific.
It not only helps the observer, but also the next identifier who comes along. I don’t always list everything that supports my identification, but I do list one or several points that indicate why the original identification was not the best choice and why my identification is a better choice.
When adding a more specific identification that is not a dissent, there are usually too many other possibilities that were excluded, so comments are not as feasible.
I think dissents are a specific case where comments are important
Even old white guys like me appreciate someone (regardless of age, race, etc.) providing a helpful ID on my record, with or without comment. As long as they stay off my lawn. ;-)
I understand your point.
Also understand mine as a queer femme, my experience may be different from others who “fit in” with the Stereotypical Scientist Community.
I never said all men or all white or all anything. But I am happy to go back an edit my description if that would help you feel better. White cis-men have the most privledge in our society, and often get away with a lot as such and are used to not having to explain themselves or being questioned - and getting away with that.
As Patrick Stewart is famous for, “People will not listen unless you are an old, white man, so I’m an old white man and I will use that to help people who need it”. :)
With so much in flux, there is an opportunity to change and improve a system that wasn’t working for a lot of people prior to the pandemic.
All I know – which isn’t much – is that as I’ve gotten older I’m less quick to make a judgment as to why anyone does anything (unless it’s an obvious crime of course.) Many of us are under pressure with illnesses, family problems, job problems, etc. Sometimes that gets in the way when we interact online and it comes across as abrasive or dismissive when it’s possibly just being stretched in too many directions at once. Very few of us really know the others we deal with here and on iNat. Certainly getting a dissenting ID on an iNat record without comment is pretty small stuff. I’ve generally had very good experiences with fellow iNatters and it’s a welcome distraction from other things in life that are much bigger and much less enjoyable … I suspect others view iNat similarly. Be well and have fun where you can find it.
First, I look at the profile of the dissenting i.d. person.
Second, I look at other examples on iN, BugGuide.net, for moths, Moth Photographers Group (MPG) and the internet in general.
If it appears that this person is correct, I change the i.d.
If it is not clear, I thank them for their suggestion and both ask to provide an explanation as a teaching moment and refer the posting to other experts in the field to see if there might be some kind of agreement.
Often, it is just best to leave the posting at the highest level of certainty that you are comfortable with.
For insects, there are an amazing amount of DNA studies being done showing that many “cryptic” species, are in fact multiple species. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12293-hidden-species-may-be-surprisingly-common/
It behooves us all to be as precise as possible to keep this marvelous site a great resource for all interested individuals as well as scientists.