Downsides of more identifiers?

[aaravmishra]

@quyksilver

So for example, a kid who posts an observation of a muskrat and IDs it as a beaver.

Is this about Gerald?

@jhbratton

People who are experts know they are experts, but people who are not experts sometimes think they are.

Well explained.

@meteorquake

Whilst some people imagine they are experts, I think it would improve the situation regarding the majority of people.

There is a saying that “the lesser you know, the more you think you know; but the more you know, the more you realise how little you know”. How can a regular inexperienced rate themselves anything but “1” on “state of matter” Life, only a few % of regular non-identifiers would actually be modest enough to keep up otherwise with a lower score, including perhaps 0.

I wish they removed opting out of CID. That took a toll on one of my first ids. I made a big report without noticing it.

@meteorquake

EverythingElse 0

For “Everything else” you should see:

@DianaStuder

I wish – but iNat’s ‘be kind’ requires us to add a positive ID – It’s A Plant Which the CID algorithm then counts as hard disagreement with everyone who comes afterwards – and now we need FIVE identifiers.

I am not even sure whether iNat will ever invent “exclusive ids”. For now we can add the wrong species id which the observation is NOT but is similar to, then add a genus level disagreement. The observer should be able to understand the intention.