I am not sure what is the correct topic to post this question under, so I trust that the mod will put it where it needs to be.
I have several observations of organisms I have no idea what they are (and neither does iNat) that I submitted last week that are still without any input from other members. I am still new to iNat and not sure how it works fully. So, what happens when an observation goes without any input for a days and weeks. Does it get pushed farther down the list below newer observations, making it less likely to get any attention from the experts?
Identifications can take a LONG time (years) because we’re all volunteers and there are more than 82,000,000 “Needs ID” observations, with more than 100,000 observations added each day. Yes, older observations get slower response than newer ones, but some of us look though observations from years ago, so don’t give up.
I recommend what has become my own approach: I think of each observation as a child that has become an adult, sent out in the world to live its own life. Maybe an identification will come, maybe not, but I need to work on nurturing my newest observations and be patient about the rest.
There are some thing you can do to help, though. If you don’t know what it is, can you put some general ID on it? Plant? Insect? Anything? If the observation has several species and no clear subject, comment to tell us what you want identified.
If you can identify to any taxonomic level that helps–“Bird”, “Lizard”, “Mammal” “Flowering plant” etc. If it’s just sitting as “Unknown” yeah that can take a very long time. A lot of us that ID will kind of sort by area and rough type (I do a lot of Texas reptiles for instance). Some folks just sit and sort through random unknowns but there are a ton of them.
Even at that it can take a while. When I’m IDing I usually set date added to random to help pull older observations forward but we all have our own workflow.
EDIT: Took a look at your observations. Plants get a lot slower response, and can be harder to ID accurately. There’s also other organisms that can be really tricky–whiptail lizards and fence lizards in parts of the southwest can be a bear to ID to species level, so can flycatchers, a lot of North American toads are tricky to impossible to ID depending on age and photographs.
I try to at least give the Family when I post an observation.
Some of these observation are old, and I have been trying to find an ID for them for years. A biologist I was talking to at a nature preserve put me onto iNat a couple of weeks ago, and after using it, and seeing the engagement from the amazing community, I thought I might finally get an ID for these things I have searched for. Actually, one did get an ID yesterday, and I was super delighted to finally know what it was (Rosy Basketmouth Cichlid). It only took 20 years.
I am patient, I just wanted to understand how the system worked. Thank you for your input.
Observations can sit there for years without any action. I have hundreds that have never elicited any comment, including some that are just identified as “animal.” Every once in a while, though, one will get a comment or an identification.
I looked over your observations. Great photos! Good preliminary ID’s! So why are ID’s so slow? First, many of the photos are plants. Plants are tremendously diverse but relatively few people work on them, so ID’s are always slower than for animals. Second, many of the photos are tropical. Not nearly enough identifiers work on observations from that area. Those factors make identifications slower for your observations – but also make your observations more valuable! Your observations are useful additions to iNaturalist, even though ID’s are slow.
It’s true, the tropical species get much less attention. North American and European species have tens of thousands of observations and thousands of potential identifiers. When I see an Ecuadorian species with more than 50 observations, it seems like a lot.
It is true that on the Identity page the default display shows newest observations first. The viewer can manipulate the settings/filters to change this, but yes at least in the default view your observation will be “buried” by those more recently uploaded. In my experience (from my own observations, but even more so from putting broad IDs on unknowns, which I used to do a lot in my earlier days) if the observation hasn’t been identified within 3 days of uploading, then it will be waiting a long time. As others have noted on this thread, you might still get an ID, but it could take years.
This might sound harsh, but I mean it in the friendliest way possible: the person most interested in IDing your observations might be you! Why wait for those mysterious “experts” to come to the rescue? If you saw something cool and really want to know what it is, maybe you have the motivation to search for field guides, or to browse other iNat photos of things it might be. Maybe you could start a conversation with someone who has observed/identified in the area and learn from them.
As far as me IDing my own observation. You can believe that I have invested much effort into that. I have gone places and seen things that few humans alive have. I know of things that science has yet to discover. I spent 20 years living in and doing deep exploration into the Amazon Rainforest (in the 80s and 90s). Countless things I have observed, I do not have pictures of and cannot go back and see. Some of my observations that I am posting, I have been seeking IDs for over up to 30 years. Back in the early 2000s, one of my photos ( I posted on an online forum seeking ID) was requested to be used by Harvard, because it was the only known photograph of that organism at the time.
iNat is a breath of fresh air for me. The great people on here have already helped me tremendously. I am really grateful to be a part of this amazing community.
Thank you for the encouragement. I have only been using iNat for a couple of weeks, but I love it. I am glad to hear that my contributions are beneficial. I have traveled much in my life and seen many things. Some of them, I may have been one of the few to ever see them. I only wish I had good pictures of stuff that I saw back in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90s. Oh! To be young again with the awesome photo equipment I have now.
All identifiers are volunteers. Some with day jobs and RL commitments.
iNat needs you to help ID (for others) where you can - by taxon or location or both. Or start at Unknown and tip the sequence to Oldest first - altho those are mostly more difficult - we have tried, frequently. Or if you have taxon knowledge start at that Needs ID and keep them moving along.
PS for example Texas Pre-Mavericks two agree and one is wrong . Needs one more to reach RG. Or. The one is a Proud Maverick, and you need 5, against those 2 who agree on the wrong ID. 34 thousand waiting patiently
i don’t see where you have a lot of old observations that are at family or higher which need Ids. where you do have a few, you either have things that may be hard to identify to species (ex. invertebrates, observations with distant photos, observations of species which have 1 or more very similar species, etc.) or which are casual observations.
the plants that i see look identifiable, and the computer vision seems to be giving reasonably good suggestions in most cases. for example:
here’s someething that can give you a general idea of how likely different “iconic taxa” will ever reach research grade (which also gives you an idea of how quickly low-level identifications will come through): https://jumear.github.io/stirfry/iNat_obs_counts_by_iconic_taxa
Everybody has old observations waiting to be IDed. As has already been pointed out, there are far more observers than identifiers.
If you do IDing for other observers who are in your area, or who are observing similar taxa, they may reciprocate by IDing some of yours. Also if you follow them, they may follow you in return, and will see what you post.
I try to contribute where I can. As I have no formal training in biology (I am just a Nature lover/Explorer), I feel hesitant to make a suggestion unless I feel I have some certainty of what I am suggesting. Is this the correct mentality to have?
You may not be certain of the species, but you likely know if something is a fern, a conifer, a moss, or a flowering plant. Many observations on iNaturalist start at higher levels like these and eventually get identified to a finer level.
You are correct. I just have a few from South America that I have long sought to identify. One is a grasshopper, the other is a fish, the other is some kind of cacti. Almost all of my observations in North America were quickly IDed, either by iNat or by other members.
I’ve developed mixed feelings on that! It depends a little on the taxon and who I’m identifying for, lately - I get a bit more reckless when I know that the person whose observation it is will push back on an errant ID, but I need to do that less in some cases given my tendency to go back and forth on IDs a lot - I’m occasionally blatantly wrong and people still agree with me, which is… mm. I talk a lot with fancy words, which can make it sound like I’m an expert when what I am is competent-in-progress.
I do know that I’ve picked out a few areas where I’ve dug back on identifications and found a hysterical number of research-grade errors that I know are errors - I’ve mistakenly corrected people and had to withdraw before, but there are some things that I am 100% certain on being wrong that have sat there for years. In fairness, I’m agonisingly fussy with an affection for the difficult plants, and I like annotating all of a species or subspecies where that’s realistic. The errors aren’t necessarily important - does it really matter which small purple twining plant that person saw? The two species are nearly identical -
(Given how many observations I felt the need to check, I guess it’s important to me.)
I’m inclined to use comments where I’m not certain or am out of my depth, at the moment. “I think this is xyz because abc”, say.
I wonder what the split is for identifiers. I would say most, like me, have good intentions and can confidently do broad IDs. You will learn about biodiversity as you get into discussions on obs (listen and learn for me)
Follow your notifications so you can respond promptly when taxon specialists push back politely.
Use iNat’s Computer Vision as a tool (like a field guide) but check distribution.
I have a growing list of taxon specialists to call on - for interesting obs with good pictures.
