For me, a “thank you” is unnecessary and can well be omitted. It appears in my feed with or without tagging, because when I commented/IDed an observation then I’m notified of new activity under it. I like being tagged in requests to identify observations from my area of interest (but I know not all identifiers like this, it’s rather quite individual thing, these preferences)
edit: I like also any discussions regarding identifications under the observation, requests for explanation why I identified an individual as a species X and not Y are also welcome
3 Likes
Seems like the concensus is pretty clear so far, and I share it.
I normally only give thanks if there is something over-and-above a typical ID. I am more likely to thank a correction - disagreeing is one of the less enjoyable parts of identification, and there is occasional discouraging push-back so I’m more inclined to give encouragement for it.
I would only be in favour of a ‘thanks’ button if there was a separate notifcation stream for it! (But I would be in favour of that)
5 Likes
This doesn’t make it any less frustrating, but I suspect a good portion of such users genuinely don’t understand how the community taxon works, or even how taxonomy works, or that they are hindering the correct ID by not withdrawing their own ID. Or they may not understand that it is possible to change one’s initial ID. (There is a related subset of users who click agree on an ID provided by others and then comment that they don’t think the suggested ID looks correct – because they don’t understand what the “agree” button means or that they are allowed to suggest their own IDs.)
At least, when I have responded in such cases and suggested that the observer withdraw their own ID if they think mine is reasonable, often as not I get a chagrined reply and a changed ID from the observer, suggesting that it is not intentional.
Of course, this still puts an additional burden on the IDer who finds themselves using their time and energy to give a “how to use iNat” tutorial rather than IDing.
11 Likes
I always appreciate thanks, though I agree that tagging isn’t necessary and bogs down one’s notification feed. It’s especially nice when you’ve taken the time to write some comments and get a response back that lets you know that the observer read them and learned something new (and I always try to write thanks to identifiers who do that for me).
Although my primary motivation is improving data quality, iNat is a social place, and I enjoy interactions with a community of people who share the joy of looking at the same lifeforms that I do. That said, I also totally share @arnanthescout’s anxiety about overthinking responses…I’m great at that!
1 Like
Thanks for an “informational comment” is nice to get, but for a simple ID, not so much.
2 Likes
Thank you comments are nice, but they can clog up the notifications if people also tag. I generally appreciate it more if the observers include a question about my identification or the organism in general.
3 Likes
I agree with the general consensus. I especially feel a thank you for just agreeing with a correct ID the observer made is definitely too much. I don’t really mind about those that I get tbh, but I know I would never again look at notifications if everyone did this.
1 Like
I enjoy being thanked, it gives me a smile once in a while when it happens, but I’m not offended if someone doesn’t thank me. Not everyone has the time or energy to thank everyone and that’s totally okay! I usually say thank you to anyone who IDs a large number of my observations at once or takes the time to explain something useful to me. I appreciate their efforts and I hate making people feel like it goes unnoticed. I think tagging is usually unnecessary though. :)
5 Likes
I really appreciate you all taking the time to shed further light on this. It has given me a lot to think about. I can’t express enough how grateful I am for all of the excellent work you all do, please keep it up (only as you can, I don’t want you to burn out), and know how deeply appreciated you all are. I will try to keep my thanks to a minimum and for particular occasions (untagged) as per what has been shared above, but if you do happen to be identifying my work, please know that my thanks is there at all times for the truly wonderful help you are.
8 Likes
Ah! I think I fall into this category. I honestly didn’t realise we were supposed to redact our IDs if someone else has corrected them (I have always understood that we shouldn’t just agree with someone else’s ID if we don’t have the knowledge about it, so in the past I have mostly left it for someone with the appropriate level of knowledge to also ID, unless when I compare it it is absolutely clear to me). For some reason I thought that then changed the original ID on its own. Whoops! Thank you for clearing that up - I will be more mindful of that.
11 Likes
If you leave your incorrect ID, three people have to put in a species level ID for it to become RG. If you withdraw your ID (you don’t have to put in a new ID) it only takes two species level IDs to become RG.
5 Likes
Good to know, I will check through my observations asap to fix them up.
5 Likes
I’ve felt the same in the past, but I also like how iNat has a distinctly non-social media vibe to it, and I worry people fishing for “likes” will erode that. On the other hand, if it encourages people to explain their IDs more often, I’m all of it.
1 Like
You dont have to redact or change it if you disagree with what someone else IDs it to.
Its…a bit fuzzy on agreeing with a new ID. It is not supposed to be a blind agree, but if you follow what they explained and now agree with that, its generally ok - that isnt blind agreeing, that is just learning!. Or; another option especiallu if you dont fully understand or agree with the new knowledge aka new id, would be to see if both of your IDs match at some level. For example, maybe same genus (the first part of the scientific name). You could move your ID to that genus, and then that makes it easier for a consensus. To find a common id you may have to click on each species, go to the taxonomy tab, and look for where its the same - maybe family or order for example.
basically, if your not sure but you think there is merit to the new id, you can always find and select that common denominator where your ID and their new ID match.
6 Likes
Ask. Most identifiers are eager to share their knowledge - if we show interest.
@Michelle I have a copypasta when I agree at a higher level, and am not confident at their level
'Not disagreeing with your …’
whatever helps to move the CID to where the taxon specialist can filter for it.
Also try the maverick link to clear glitches (replace my name with yours)
https://www.inaturalist.org/identifications?user_id=dianastuder&category=maverick
3 Likes
I don’t feel strongly about it, you can thank me for ID if you want to! I don’t find it annoying and it’s nice to know that people appreciate my ids. But I find it more interesting when people actually ask me to explain why I chose one or another ID, so that they can learn how to identify better too.
3 Likes
Broadly I don’t have an issue with what I experience, but I largely don’t find thanking people for confirming an ID that they identified themselves to be necessary? If everyone did it it would become a problem fast. That said, I think when there’s been signs of engagement, like if an indentifier has gone through a mass of unidentified observations and IDed them down to species, or IDed something you’ve been struggling with for a while, or if there’s been an active conversation about an ID, then just commenting with a thank you (and the reason why you’re thankful!) is something I do appreciate more often than not. I think clarifying why creates a better sense of community
1 Like
So true! In a different thread I shared my fantasy of a process for when people sign on to iNat. There is lots of info available on this hugely complex website, but because people come here with some ideas about what iNat is about (many of them erroneous) many of us stumble around creating (hopefully mild) levels of havoc before we figure things out.
An experiential tutorial process, where the new iNatter gets feedback/instruction/correction on the front end would be empowering to new folks and would spare hours of volunteer time. It also could be gamified, so it doesn’t feel like a chore, and awarded with a title when completed (which could be added to your profile page).
5 Likes
For straightforward agreeing IDs with no additional shared information, I do not really feel I earn any gratitude and it does feel odd to receive “thank you” messages for them. It feels awkward to see them since I cannot respond with any substance and the conversation has no function of increasing the information/discussion on the observation.
For IDs where I share plenty of additional information or I was specifically invited to share my opinion, I do not mind being thanked on occasion. But I usually prefer gratitude shown by more than “thank you,” such as asking more questions, a comment about the substance of the IDing process, or more expression of interest about the subject of ID.
I feel the most gratitude from observers when they provide description of what they observed so more information is available in tricky cases, curate their observations in such a way that their media show the best shots from as many angles as they were able to capture, and when observers participate in the discussion to answer questions about what they saw in case more information is necessary. When working together to make accurate IDs I am pleased to help, no “thank you” is required. When the observations become a record of media, metadata, and a detailed discussion which includes information about the resulting community taxon ID… that is gratitude for me.
5 Likes
I would say thats a good strategy, to comment without a tag. If I’m really invested in that observation I’ll drop by to see what the comment was and it’s always nice to see a thank you, otherwise tagging is more reserved for when you need something from an identifier.
1 Like