Maybe the birders on iNat are amazing as pointed out in another topic. I’ve even uploaded this poor example and had it identified, but how much confidence is there in the ID? How many features did the identifier see that made them think it was correct? Is it someone following etiquette and being bold, basing it on probability and range instead of features? I’d rather see a more detailed observation like this where there’s obviously enough detail that anyone identifying it would have many features to look at.
All of that might be moot. I’m biased towards plants so I was thinking more about photos of trees from far away, where leaves are indistinct but necessary for identification or drive-by photos where the whole image is one massive motion-blur.
Edit: The doubtful tone about the poor example isn’t to say I’m ungrateful to anyone who does do ID by region and probability. I like the be bold stance and appreciate anyone willing to do IDs. Every little bit of identification helps and the generosity of identifiers is always appreciated.