It’s always worth reiterating: iNat doesn’t exist for data purity, but to help people connect with nature. Bad data is not a technological problem- it’s an anthropological problem. Each time you kindly correct an identification, you are helping the community grow in knowledge, moving the dial on the nature-human connection.
To that end, it is helpful to offer diagnostic explanations for your corrections. When I go a-campaigning on some genus or species, I’ll take the most common diagnostics and copy them in a document. That way, I just have to copy and paste the relevant explanatory note for the situation, and it takes an extra 10 seconds, that way the user and anyone who views the observation can learn from it. Users in the area will often start reaching out for your help, and suddenly iNat becomes a potent teaching platform.
Don’t be too distressed over error. Enjoy the process. It’s a beautiful thing. Thanks for your thoughtful contributions!