There is a keen new identifier in my area, who has made lots of my observations research grade. At first I thought that was nice, but as it has continued I have lost faith that they really know what the organisms are. I think they are just agreeing, not identifying. Lots were things where I had a suggested ID, but was hoping that one day an expert would either confirm or disagree. But by adding (what I suspect are) uninformed agreements, those observations are no longer “Needs ID”. Someone else I know raised this with me because the same thing has happened to them. So I don’t know how widespread these agreements are, but there are at least 2 of us unhappy about it.
I’m thinking what we need to do is go back through our observations and withdraw our original suggestions, to put the observations back to Needs ID. Is there an easy way of finding our observations that have been IDed by a particular user?
Also, can anyone suggest a tactful way of asking this person to be more careful about their IDs? I don’t want to stifle their enthusiasm, but what is happening isn’t good.
Perhaps, you could thank them for an identification, and then ask them on what they based their identification. If they suggest that they were helping you by confirming your identification, then you might explain that you are uncertain of your own identifications or, to be more pointed, say you are guessing on your identifications, so you need an expert’s opinion. Then ask them to help you by withdrawing their identifications. That should teach them not to confirm identifications they are uncertain of, and you’ve phrased it so they won’t be embarrassed. If they continue to ID after that, then you’ll need to be direct.
I’ve gone through mine and knocked a few of my IDs back to genus, which had the desired effect, and for a couple of others I’ve tagged experts and asked them to check the observation.
I’ve forwarded the appropriate URL to the other person I mentioned.
Still contemplating how to approach the person. I was a bit shocked looking at all their IDs to find that they have not confined their efforts to our local area, as I had assumed, but have IDed stuff all over the world.
Added later: For a couple of mine that I have knocked back to genus, I’ve tagged the person and asked them “…could you please tell me the characteristics that allowed you to ID this to species? I wasn’t 100% certain myself.”
I don’t have ‘agreeing’ notifications turned off. If that happens to me - I can click Yes - CID can be improved - which keeps it in Needs ID - and reminds me to unclick once I am okay with the CID. That keeps your own ID where you want it.
We have a Help article you can use in a comment or a PM
If ‘enthusiastic new identifier’ is combined with ‘ignores’ notifications that is … difficult. I come across swathes of that in the batches I choose to ID. Combined with - has since moved on and abandoned their mess
Have you considered guessing to genus level when you’re not sure? That avoids this problem altogether.
I’ve been observing plants in the state of Vermont for some time now. Fortunately there are excellent flora for this region that I refer to almost daily. One thing I’ve learned is that there are many plants that are not easily identified to species. Some have look-alikes, some require a flower or fruit, some require magnification, etc. For these species (and their look-alikes), the algorithm is actually hurtful since it gives the impression that a species-level ID is attainable.
As an identifier, I often add a non-disagreeing genus-level ID in situations where the observer has likely over-specified the ID. This tends to stop the identification process in its tracks, with very little expense on my part. Occasionally the observer will downgrade their initial ID in response, in which case I usually leave a short comment.
I’m not guessing at all. The suggestions I’ve made were ones I thought were correct, but unsurprisingly sometimes it turns out that an expert knows better. I frequently ID my own observations to genus level, or family, or higher. One of the clues I had that this person didn’t have any particular expertise was that lots of the IDs they added were just agreeing with my genus-level IDs, never adding finer IDs. I didn’t care about agreements with higher level IDs.
I see who it is and having read his profile, have you considered seeking him out in person and have a chat? It seems that enthusiasms and youth are dominating. It looks like he needs a mentor.
Thanks for that - they have changed their profile since I looked at it originally. Now I see they are quite young. I might try sending them a message. But I also feel like I should delete this forum post/thread as it is leading to people identifying who I was talking about.
I’ve experienced the same issues from time to time. A gentle comment has usually been enough. Some IDs I make on my own observations are way out there and I doubt there is anyone on iNat who really has the answers at present. I hopefully ask the identifier for their reason but haven’t ever gotten an answer. It usually stops the identifications.
Best possible outcome is to turn an enthusiastic newbie who’s making lots of mistakes, into a lasting identifier making fewer mistakes. It can be done, with some really positive framing. Encourage them with what they can do, where they can channel that enthusiasm with ambition, not just what they shouldn’t be doing.
I have tried on various occasions to gently suggest that a user be a bit more cautious when making IDs and channel their enthusiasm towards activities where they already have some solid knowledge, but apparently I am too direct, even by German standards, and invariably they seem to get in a huff or end up feeling insulted. I don’t want to discourage people, just get them to approach IDing a bit more responsibly, but it seems like the latter is often received as the former.
This reminds me of a professor I knew from Germany who was talking about cultural differences, saying how he had to adapt when he came to the UK, because he could no longer simply tell the students their work was **** - ‘they get upset!’
You can’t ultimately control how people react. We have to rely on them to ‘assume others mean well’, just as we are encouraged to do. Sometimes they won’t. I guess it also depends a bit on what exactly they are doing, how bad it is, and how broad a range of taxa they are identifying.
Just thinking about framing:
Consider direct message rather than comment on an observation - less potential for embarassment
‘It’s great to see you getting involved with identifying a lot of xxxx’
Introduce self to reduce ‘stranger threat’ and set context. ‘I’m xxxx, I do a lot of identifying xxxx’
Then describe problem and recommendation, ‘I’ve noticed a couple of things I thought I should point out…’,
‘If you need any help about an observation feel free to tag me in. Keep up the good work.’
I will often say something like, “Hello! Could you please tell me me how to distinguish Species A from Species B when they are not in flower? I can’t tell them apart by the leaves and since both occur in your area, I would like to learn how you do it. Thanks!” That might get them thinking, anyway.
This reminds me of a professor I knew from Germany who was talking about cultural differences, saying how he had to adapt when he came to the UK, because he could no longer simply tell the students their work was **** - ‘they get upset!’