I realised there are some other examples of accuracy metrics and discussion of accuracy on other threads, mentioned by @bouteloua -
…where a 2.5% error rate is mentioned.
There is more detail of the methodology on this one in the link. It seems at first glance as if the whole paper is only focussed around birds.
Again, I struggle to believe there is only a 2.5% error rate in Diptera! Though that would not surprise me in birds. Again, as with the other accuracy metric thats floated, it seems meaningless if the %s are then extrapolated as a sweep across all taxa. This, from the same thread, seems equally plausible to me in some taxa.
It also echoes sentiments of other field experts I’ve spoken to - one said they joined for the exact same reason… but knew another who left for the same reason… whilst others I’ve spoken to are simply overly dismissive of platform as a result.
If some sort of transparency re:accuracy of the observations could be ascribed to the output, this could increase respectability of dataset.