Dissenting ID Comments Would be Useful

General
48

This! When working Unknowns, I see this especially from a few people who also seem to be working Unknowns. They saw a photo (thumbnail?) of a flower and identify the flower. But the note and/or placeholder text make it clear the observers wanted the bumble bee identified. And it’s dismaying to find that even though others have caught the note, the observation is still sitting at ‘Life’ - not yet having enough suggestions reflecting the insect to override the plant ID. They never seem to withdraw. Either when the note is pointed out or when dissenting ID suggestions can prove their ID is not accurate.

I think it behooves identifiers to not gain speed and ease at the expense of making correct - to the best of their ability and respecting the intention of the observer - IDs and that means looking at all the photos and reading the notes and any placeholder text or Unknowns.

Back to the subject of dissenting IDs, if I want more info from an identifier who disagrees with me - either with my formally suggested ID or one I was privately making - I try to do my homework. I do as much research as I can… using resources easily found on the internet and (mostly) easily understood by me without having to look up a half dozen scientific terms. :-)

Then, when I ask, I personally assume this person knows what they’re talking about and ask from that viewpoint. I say I’ve done my research and haven’t been able to get to the ID they’ve made. Could they provide a mini-tutorial on the details they use to arrive at their suggestion. THEN, I point out the details I’m seeing and possibly the resources I’m using (in case it turns out one of them is out of date). I believe this accomplishes a few things. A) it tries to set the ground for amicable conversation rather than being misunderstood as a more antagonistic challenge B) it shows I’ve done some work and not just asking someone who knows their stuff to give me what they have on a platter and C) it lets the other person know what I have looked at if that helps them narrow in on what I might have missed.

My response rate when I’ve asked isn’t great. I have a mental list of those handful who are always responsive and I will ask them occasionally… being respectful of their time. But if I don’t recognize the identifier I mostly just roll with their ID, assume they know more than me, and let it go. Because my response rate outside of that ‘responsive group’, the response rate is very low. Like less than 10%. I accept that’s the way crowd sourcing works and don’t get too fussed over it.

4 Likes
49

Anytime this is the case, I think iNaturalist should have a complex to cover all the known and unknown related species and (more difficult) users have to be aware of it.

1 Like
50

I agree @Ajott. I’ve asked sometimes, and have always found the person I’m asking to be helpful and explain why they’ve changed the identification. I really appreciate the generosity of iNat experts - the sharing of expert’s hard-won knowledge and time is a precious thing for us non-experts. Life is a learning experience and generous iNat experts add colour and shape to our days. Thank you!!!

3 Likes
51

Hi all,

I also appreciate it when folks who disagree provide a few well-thought-out reasons in a Comment, or reply to a request for such. (If they want to use technical terms that is fine, I can look them up if I don’t know them).

As an IDer myself, I prefer to leave an explanatory comment most of the time, since probably at least half of my IDs are dissenting (“fixing” a few hard-to-ID plant taxa & many times disagreeing with an incorrect “Research Grade” ID; but sometimes the “disagreement” is simply to update an old scientific name to a new one).

I only got addicted to iNatting last September, but soon enough I realized that 1) it is impossible to ID every observation that needs it, and 2) I needed to work towards letting go of any expectations about what iNatters “should” or “shouldn’t” be doing, including myself. Everyone here has their own reason for what they are doing with the site, even if it doesn’t make sense to me :-)

In the process of making myself write down why I don’t agree with an ID (or why I feel I can take it down to species level), I learn quite a lot, and that is very satisfying. I’m forced to think more carefully about what I’m seeing, to notice minute differences between plants, and to articulate my thoughts in ways that (hopefully!) make sense to others. I do IDing with several plant keys at hand, so I can provide reasons why one ID may be a better choice than another.

Often only one or two important ID features need to be mentioned in an explanatory comment, and I don’t mind using cut-and-paste notes over and over. You never know which observers actually might be interested in the reason for a dissenting ID or even an improving ID (it’s such a pleasure to hear back from the few that are, and it’s interesting to have discussions if the ID is a difficult one).

As well, I also think of the others who may take the time to look at the observation in the future and be interested to know the reasoning behind an ID / change without wanting to deal with asking anyone. I myself look at lots of observations to learn about certain plants, and sometimes wonder about the ID process I’m seeing, but you know how it is, much of the time the various people involved no longer respond for whatever reason.

Finally, I really appreciate those who notice my mistakes and take the time to let me know. You realize how precious time is when you get addicted to iNat ;~)

7 Likes
52

i think adding identification comments in general – not just for disagreements – is a good thing, just as adding observation descriptions / notes, annotations, etc., is helpful, too, but i understand that it’s not always an efficient use of time to make such comments.

when i was first starting off with my identifications, i would leave detailed comments on most identifications explaining why i made the particular ID. mostly it was for my own learning, since having to explain why you think something really cements knowledge in brains, and also i would sometimes go back to past identification notes to refresh my memory on how to identify different things. at some point i realized that more than a few of those notes were disappearing, and as best as i could figure, folks were either deleting their observations or deleting their accounts altogether once they had an identification. i get that not everyone who uses iNat will do so over the long term, but knowing that the significant effort put into detailed ID notes could be wasted like that does make me think twice about adding notes nowadays.

that said, i am always amazed when i encounter identifiers that leave a lot of good notes, and i’m always appreciative of their efforts. for example, i haven’t made observations in Vancouver BC in a long time, but i still remember an identifier there who provided very detailed and helpful notes for a lot of his plant IDs.

if there was a way that people could identify themselves or their observations as wanting some additional notes, i might leave more notes in these cases. i don’t know exactly how i would design kind of functionality though…

6 Likes
53

Thanks, @Ajott, for an excellent suggestion. It makes a lot of sense simply to ask!

54

One thing I do if the dissenting ID seems reasonable and the IDer seems to know their subject, I’ll simply withdraw my ID and wait to see if someone else concurs with first IDer. That’s assuming I don’t know enough to agree with the first IDer. It does require patience.

3 Likes
55

I didn’t have to send disagreements yet (but received a few which were justified). When I add comments to an ID, they are intended to help the observer. I.e. on a “unknown” green smooth caterpillar photographed properly (i.e. including side or ventral view) I say something like “legs on 1,2,3,6,7,8,9, therefore Lepidoptera but neither Geometridae nor Noctuidae”; then I dump it into Lepidoptera (where somebody will find & refine it quickly). If only a dorsal view is there, I put it into Pterygota (where I know someone walks after me and cleans or refines my mess) and add something like “no legs visible, unclear whether sawfly or butterfly” in the hope the observer will make better pictures the next time (or even be able to add a less coarse ID themselves).

Another comment I often (seeing an black oval with six legs sticking out) have to add is “when taking pictures of dark beings on a light background, please manually overexpose to make details of the animal visible, not the details of the wall”. Again, Pterygota instead of bug or beetle (hopefully somebody from the region recognizes it by other criteria).

2 Likes
56

@das43 – I agree. Providing some information when making a disagreeing identification is indeed a good thing! However, I do a lot of identifications. Sometimes I provide a brief explanation. Sometimes I use a bit of text I copy and paste into observation for an explanation. And sometimes I make no comment at all. Maybe I’m tired. Maybe I’m working on old records for observers have mostly left iNaturalist. Maybe I’m just being lazy. Please, always ask if you want to know. It’s great to deal with an observer who actually cares. (Sometimes I learn something and correct an error I made. And then there was the “Canada Gooseberry” with feathers and wings and a long black neck – it’s easy to click the wrong button.)

So ask. Not only do you perhaps learn something, (and I maybe learn, too) but finding out that the observer is watching and cares is the best reinforcement I could get as an identifier.

9 Likes
59

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.