How do you provide comments or suggestions? When suggesting, do you accompany yours with morphological descriptions or research studies?
I thought of this while commenting on a suggestion about Bauhinia purpurea, and my justification and support for my suggestion was providing a link to the same species I have observed myself – it feels… lacking, in my opinion.
Always a tug-of-war between observers and identifiers. I like brief comments, with links for more info for those who need / want it. Too much info is frustrating for taxon specialists, if it seems their time and effort is ignored.
This is my TIL example
Oooo! I like this! It’s simple and easy to understand.
The erudite links to a key, or a thoughtful discussion are better in a journal post. Which can be linked from for subsequent relevant obs.
Last one. If, as I imagine from your profile, you are a taxon specialist then a text expander is useful for constantly repeated comments
Probably 90% of my earthworm IDs are moving something at genus or species back to order, so I copy and paste the same few sentences that contain links to ID resources and why their blurry photos cannot be identified on almost every observation to keep things moving. I may add a note or two when needed.
When identifying genus/species, I may write up a little more if asked to but generally assume the observer knows what they are doing and does not need a detailed explanation if they can get an earthworm to show the parts needed to identify it to that level. I used to write a lot more and have a document with all sorts of copy-paste diagnoses of common species, but there was so little feedback and interest in engaging with these IDs that I stopped. If you’re dealing with a large volume of low-quality observations, especially those made years ago by accounts that are no longer active, I prefer to not waste my energy on lengthy explanations except in rare cases, say, misidentified super rare species that needs correction.
i like a quick explanation plus one to a couple links to other examples - typically on bugguide, as i mostly stick to north american arthropods.
Yes - with following a plan of “positive escalation”: 1) brief comment to support (ID) suggestion, for observer, and for other potential identifiers; 2) on occasion, in depth comment to “fill in” rationale with species and/or subspecies clarifications(s), for observer, other potential identifiers; 3) links to iNat journal posts with a version of either a FAQ or posting re: research articles on the identification “markers” or range/distribution.
I admit my approach seems “time-consuming” but it is actually rewarding. I think: ‘you never know when that additional info/link/rationale will be used - even months later or in a year, or longer.’
But then…I enjoyed reading ‘In Search of Lost Time’ (Proust) and ‘Memoirs From Beyond The Grave’ (Chateaubriand) - so my ‘long form’ toward the ID process might be idiosyncratic, to which I am learning to be brief (even as this response runs counter to that notion).