Background: I’ve recently been going through observations in the Pre-Maverick project and added a fair number of IDs. If I can move the Community ID closer to correct (such as family-level rather than Dicots) but am not confident below that, I still feel like it’s helpful to add, but I’ve had 3-4 people in the last couple of days querying/complaining about me having ‘disagreed’ with their IDs. This included two who got somewhat acrimonious, insisting I’d moved the observation out of RG with a higher-level ID (including one who then found an RG observation of mine and added a (non-disagreeing) higher-level ID with a snide comment). This has left me with a bad taste in my mouth and rather hesitant to keep doing such IDs, which seems a shame.
Does anyone have any suggestions for better ways to interact with such people and convince them that the fact that yes, there are two correct IDs doesn’t mean the observation was RG if there’s a previous disagreeing ID?
Or are they sort of right (even in their misunderstanding), it’s just not worth doing anyway unless you can agree to species level?
Usually I just explain it to people and they go something like “oh, I had no idea it worked that way”. Other times I get people who don’t believe me so then I withdraw my ID and show them what happens when mine is gone which is exactly how it was before I got there. If that still doesn’t convince them, then I just leave it withdrawn and move on to the next observation. I’ve never had anyone try to retaliate before.
Hmm, usually when I’m doing this I’ll just include a comment that says something like, “Not disagreeing, this is just as far as I am capable of IDing” and I don’t think I’ve ever had anyone say anything.
If you feel like it, explain to them how maverick IDs work. Probably simplest to just ignore/block the users getting testy with you though.
The other couple responded in that way, and that’s fine (I don’t expect everyone to know the system, but people should be willing to listen to reason).
The two who objected each had one or more species-level IDs added before I saw them again - so, success in that the observations finally got to RG after 2-3 years in limbo, but makes it harder to prove.
In one case, after a few back-and-forth messages, I withdrew my ID and suggested they could check my claim by temporarily withdrawing their ID, but they basically said they didn’t want to have anything to do with me anymore (my paraphrase), so I don’t think they were interested in the truth.
There’s a big part of me that just wants people to understand, and is convinced that if I can just explain the right way, it will make everything right. Unfortunately, I suspect I just need to learn to overcome that feeling because it’s not true… As you say, it’s crazy.
I don’t think it is worthless to add a higher-level supporting ID to help overcome a pre-maverick situation, or to try to move something from “Life” to a meaningful classification. I think if particular people object then I would try to avoid those people’s observations in future. Although I don’t know how possible that is as I generally don’t notice whose observation something is when IDing. But if you notice, maybe skip them. Especially if they are going to be nasty about it.
Keep up the good work! I’ve noticed lots of your IDs in the pre-maverick observations.
And commiserations on the dreadful Grampians fire - I guess you won’t be doing any hiking there over the summer.
Years ago I almost quit using Inaturalist because of some user’s comment. But I decided ignoring the person works better. For example, I decided to quit reporting some things to the state heritage program as a result of comments. They can make their own decisions. As for Research Grade, I find that somewhat useless because any two people can suddenly make anything Research Grade. I also gave up on trying to identify things to species where I would have to check a botanical key or learn about some group of species I will never be an expert it. For example, as an American, I do try to identify a variety of species in China but I don’t feel like I have to know everything about every species worldwide. I just do the best I can and let others worry about the details.
I’ve found that attempting to explain has a very low success rate and just results in me becoming very irritated. At this point I generally just ignore any such comments - they’ll either learn how the site works eventually, or they’ll leave.
If they do interact negatively with one of your own observations in retaliation, you should of course flag it for curatorial attention - often the explanation of an uninvolved party is more successful at getting through to them.
I’ve also been working a lot on pre-mavericks recently and to move the observation along I often find myself adding a higher genus, or even family, level ID. When I do this I add a comment: “I’m not disagreeing with the finer ID above, but as I can’t confirm it, I’m adding a higher level ID to help move the observation along. If this slows down the ID process in future, let me know and I’ll withdraw.” I’ve had a few people question why and how this works, but explaining that it helps bring the often years-old observation to the attention of someone who can (hopefully) resolve the controversy definitively has always resolved the issue amicably.
In the case you describe where someone actually acted in retaliation, I’d report it. Unacceptable behaviour.
I probably would have if it had been a disagreeing ID - but it felt like an overreaction when it didn’t actually change the ID?
I often leave a note (though not always), but it’s typically been shorter and less informative. I might try using something more like your note in future - thanks.
Thanks for the confirmation that what I’m doing is helpful, and yes, if I notice IDs by one person in particular I’ll probably ignore them or at least handle them differently (though as you say, it’s not something I’d typically pay much attention to). And thanks for all your IDs, too - since they’re the only reason you’re seeing mine!
Yes, the fires are definitely messing up my summer walking plans - though at least there’s been minimal damage to property so far. Fingers crossed for later in the week. I’m way behind on uploading observations, though, so maybe I need to catch up on that while I can!
Here is how I feel about this issue : it is never pleasing when you think you have got a specie right and someone brings it up a level without explanation.
I personally think that this should not be done unless :
you are really good on the subject and can reasonably think that you have a better knowledge that the first identifier
you make a comment explaining why it is definitely not possible to be certain about the specie
Assuming these simple rules should eliminate any acrimonious comment.
A fire needs at least two sticks to keep burning. Remove your stick and the fire will eventually die out.
The bigger problem is the complete lack of emotional maturity online these days. People seem to have lost the capacity to respectfully disagree. Everyone seems to have turned into fanatical gatekeepers who will burn the world down trying you to force others to agree with them.
This.
Try and leave a comment or few words, “Blue wings”, “Only species here”.
Proves you’re a human open to communication in some language.
Even better, add some extra word like “probably” or “afaik” at the end.
Proves you’re a fallible human open to correction.
I think this is a place where a copy-pasta is useful. Something like, “I’m not disagreeing but this is the best I can identify this observation” or providing an explanation about mavericks. Maybe keep a file of them so you can pull out the one most appropriate for the observation you’re working on.
I’m sorry you had that experience with your state heritage program. We have so few observers in Nevada that I was always happy to get more data, even if it turned out the IDs were sometimes inaccurate.
If I know an observation is incorrectly identified, then I think that as a conscientious identifier, I have an obligation to add a disagreeing identification, whether or not I explain it and whether I am providing a species ID or a higher taxon ID. Making this change doesn’t require any particular level of expertise, just enough to be confident that the earlier ID is mistaken. (If I’m familiar with the organism, that may be easy to know.)
It is polite to add an explanation and I often do so. I want to educate! That’s not required, though, and it often feels useless, like throwing rocks in the ocean, because the observers are long gone or don’t seem to care. If you want an explanation, you can ask and I’ll be happy to explain, though it may take a few days to see to the notification from you.
In my personal experience, “it is never pleasing when you think you have got a specie right and someone brings it up a level” or if they correct it at the species level, whether they explain or not. Being wrong is not pleasant. Being corrected is necessary but I admit that if I write “Thank you” I am not always being honest about my feelings, just recognizing how I should feel.