This attitude that we cannot share an observation without perfect positive identification is exactly what turns regular humans away from iNat, and the crux of the question posed.
You should be able to independently confirm your identification
Definitions from [Oxford Languages]
verb
SHOULD
used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions.
MUST
1 :an imperative need or duty:
REQUIREMENT
2 : an indispensable item : ESSENTIAL
The first and now co-reason for the development of iNaturalist is not the advancement of science, but a vehicle for humans to interact with nature.
would take in focus pictures which show the relevant field marks
would add proof of needed lab backup, genetics, microscope, dissection
the second ID would come from your rival taxon specialist
And we do have some obs like that.
Most of us are looking at the other 99.9% of obs, where observer and identifiers are working together as best we can.
Over-reliance on the CV (or complete reliance—as you note, there’s no way to really tell) can indeed be frustrating when someone is giving species-level IDs to taxa that are tricky to identify. But what level of research is needed from users (who are mostly not biologists/taxonomists) when they give an initial ID of something they saw on their hike that they are looking to give a name to? Yes, hopefully they do more than just pick the first CV suggestion without even looking, but I’ll be frank, if they put it at, say, “plant” or “dicot” and no-one catches it in the first week or so, that observation is probably not getting IDed for years (which, obviously, would be a bit discouraging for new users).
Maybe one issue here is that the UX of the mobile app (which for many users is their only interface with iNat) very much encourages the use of the CV, a design choice one could argue is somewhat at odds with the help article you cite.
On the other hand, I do feel that “confirm” is not the right word choice from iNat for the kind of photo-based identifying that occurs on this website (in the common sense of “confirm”, not any narrow epistemological sense). Yes, you should “be able to defend and explain it, citing evidence if asked” (which I would call “justification,” not “confirmation”), but even experts on this website will give (good, educated, good-faith) guesses on IDs. And IDers (even very careful ones) are sometimes wrong! Clearly they couldn’t “confirm” their ID—were they breaking iNat policy with their (ultimately erroneous) suggestion? Are the mushroom observers who provide DNA barcodes the only rule-following observers on this site?
A bigger problem, in my opinion, is observers just casually agreeing with the first ID (or any ID) made for them by others on their own observations. But that’s not really a CV over-reliance issue, it’s a human over-reliance issue!
But if every ID (initial or agreeing) is meant to be made completely independently:
then it’s in no way misleading to give IDs based solely on the CV, because your ID should have no impact on any future ID anyone else gives. It’s only misleading to base your IDs on the CV if the initial ID is the only one requiring actual thought. Everyone has an equal right to be wrong (though it’s not ideal), whether they base their ID on picking what the CV says is most likely (a far better guess than I could get in many taxa) or on years of study.
Yes, but not necessarily the original observer. iNat seeks to promote interactions between people and the natural world. It is quite possible to enjoy and to benefit from observing plants and animals without being able to identify the observed organisms. People should be encouraged to post their observations even when they can only call it a plant or an animal or a fungus or even just a living thing. Those observations may be useful to someone else. I have a few such mystery organisms myself, still waiting for some sort of id.
This was written in the context of adding identifications to other users’ observations or agreeing with IDs people made on your observations, and it might be a good idea for the FAQ to clarify that.
So, I’m trying to think back to 2016, when I first joined. My background isn’t in STEM. I had little knowledge of plants/animals, and I had little time to do any extra studying (still don’t have time I’d like). I was afraid of annoying people who were “science-y” even though I really wanted to participate and learn what some of my observations were. I was careful with my first observation. I did have a good sense of what it was before I uploaded it (snowberry clearwing–butterflies and some moths being my only area with some possibility of accuracy stemming from childhood). And, I waited. I had positive feedback. That kept me going, but I was so afraid of being wrong all the time. I didn’t want to bother people with stupid observations or id’s, and I worried about being “called out.” That actually did happen once or twice–I remember being embarrassed. But, I also received a few kind, positive short comments from experts and local iNatters that kept me going. I also note here that I became more interested in areas where there was positive feedback–I felt like I was helping (e.g. bumble bees–I’d never been interested in them before). So, I try now to welcome new people, send the occasional cheery word about a fun observation, answer a question if I can. I also like to admit to new people that I’m not sure because I’m not an expert. Long note short, it’s a leap of faith to post something here the first few times. I think “non-science-y” people need encouragement to upload observations and a little positive feedback during their newbie stage. I was older when I joined–I suspect that helped. I’m in my “mature period” now where I don’t give a damn so much about what people think Younger people need even more support, I think. They are so used to being demeaned online. Mentors help.
I agree with you, my beginning on iNat had some “bumps” that almost turned me away. Confusion over jumping spiders and many tech problems with phone app and signal woes, it took a couple days and a level of frustration for both myself and actually helpful ider to understand what and how…remembering we are working with vastly different skill levels is important.
I am one the many retirees here, and find that as my learning and retention varies, it gets tough adding knowledge. I am also finding great intelligence among the youngest here.
We all need to keep that hand out to help
Honestly, if I wasn’t willing to do this, a lot more of my observations would be initially IDed at the kingdom, phylum, or order level. Not helpful. I don’t consider the CV suggestions to be conceptually different from the photos in a field guide; if I have a field guide to a taxonomic group in which I am not a specialist, what else would I do besides compare the pictures and pick the one that my organism most resembles? Printed field guides have the same limitation as the CV in that some taxonomic groups (such as mushrooms) are not as comprehensively covered as others (such as herps). But telling people that they shouldn’t use their field guides does not facilitate their learning about nature; likewise telling them that they shouldn’t use the CV.
But what level of research is needed from users (who are mostly not biologists/taxonomists) when they give an initial ID of something they saw on their hike that they are looking to give a name to?
Really, “I looked at it, and it seems to be right” is all we’re asking for. Just for people to use their own judgement, and not merely click the first option in the CV blindly. People need to look at the observation and determine what they think it probably is, using the CV as a suggestion, not an answer. If you want to put a number of it, when I correct identities in the herbarium I usually strive for something like a minimum level of ~75% degree of confidence before putting a label on.
I think “confirm” is fine choice of words. Frankly, I think we should be encouraging users to be more cautious about putting species-level identifications. People’s identities should have a degree of confidence. I do not think “confirm” implies absolute certainty- even DNA barcodes can’t provide that. But it does discourage people from thinking “ah, it could be that but I don’t know…” and putting a name on it anyway.
Honestly, I think as the CV gets more accurate this user behavior going to be a bigger and bigger problem. From my interactions here don’t think people really grasp how blindly following the CV would essentially destroy the usefulness of this site in the long run. Perhaps iNat should consider burying the CV behind some sort of click-through agreement of “I will not use this suggestion as the sole basis of my determination”, or something until people get that this is an actual policy, not just an opinion.
This feels pedantic. “Independently” obviously does not intend to mean totally without outside influence, like a man stranded on a desert island. People aren’t expected to invent the science of taxonomy themselves from the ground-up.
The next sentence in the policy makes it clear what the intentions of the policy are: “Please do not rely solely on AI tools like iNaturalist’s Computer Vision suggestions”. I’ve highlighted the key word here. In this paragraph, “independent” means it should come from you, not come from the CV or from someone else. The CV can influence your judgement, as does the identities of other people, but neither should be the sole basis for your identification.
Everyone has an equal right to be wrong (though it’s not ideal), whether they base their ID on picking what the CV says
No, they don’t have this “right”. It’s explicitly against iNat policy. I don’t know how much clearer “do not rely solely on AI tools like iNaturalist’s Computer Vision” needs to be.
That’s not a “policy” that people can’t just select the top CV ID when making observations (otherwise someone can ban my account because I’ve done it many times) and I don’t think staff would agree with some of the things you’ve said here. Again, it was originally written in the context of adding IDs to other people’s observations, situations where some people blindly agree with IDs on their own observations, and, later, massive uploads of automated content not fully reviewed by humans. I can’t view the history of the old FAQ page anymore but I think it could have even been me who added some of that language originally lol
Again, it was originally written in the context of adding IDs to other people’s observations and situations where some people blindly agree with IDs on their own observations.
I do not think the text on this page was written in error. One reason, is that the same wording appears in two places. First in the “What is an identification?” page and the second on the “When should I agree with someone else’s identification?” page. If it was only intended for the latter, I think it would only be there. The fact that its on both pages strongly implies that this text was intended for both, unless this is some glaring copy/paste mistake that has gone unnoticed until now.
Until the text " You should be able to independently confirm your identification and be able to defend and explain it, citing evidence if asked. Please do not rely solely on AI tools like iNaturalist’s Computer Vision suggestions" is removed from the page, I am going to continue to refer to it as iNat policy.
Feel free, if you insist, to change the text to say that the initial identification does not require independent confirmation, nor the ability to explain it, and can rely solely on the CV, if that’s what you actually want.
Of course, the consequences of that would be that from now on users should treat the first “identification” as useless, as no human input was necessarily required to make it. Perhaps then, users such as myself should be able to identify our observations twice, so people know we’re actually serious about it?
You could always write in comments why you ID’d something the way you did, I do that sometimes, especially when not all the relevant features are visible in the photo. That indicates a human is deliberately making a choice to ID.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that no ID, first, second, or fifty-third, should ever be treated as inherently either useful or useless. Whether made by a human based on knowledge or by a computer, no ID can be completely relied upon (speaking as someone who has found many, many wrong IDs, sometimes with up to four people agreeing). No one should be looking at the previous ID and assuming it’s right, wherever it comes from - and no one should assume that because an ID comes from the CV it’s useless (though that’s a lot closer to true in some areas). With species I know, I frequently click on the top CV suggestion because it’s correct (and easier than typing).
And please don’t tell me that being wrong is against iNat policy, because if you can show me anyone who’s never made a mistake, I’ll tell you it’s only because they’ve never done anything.
And please don’t tell me that being wrong is against iNat policy
To be clear, the part of what you said that’s currently against iNat policy is “basing their ID on picking what the CV says”. You can read where iNat explicitly says not to do that here.
I think most people are overlooking the fact that defending the choice can be as simple as describing the individual observed and that description matching the cv identification.
Or going to a key and it says opposite obovate leaves and dentate margins and what cv reccomends also matches that then that is good enough for the average person
Thinking more about your overall argument, it struck me that the impression I would get from what you’re saying is that the level of proof/confidence/knowledge required for an initial ID is greater than that required for subsequent IDs - whereas, if anything, I would tend to assume the opposite (unless the initial ID is from someone other than the observer, and the observer agrees). I find that interesting (not trying to criticise either approach, just observe a difference).
Younger people need even more support, I think. They are so used to being demeaned online. Mentors help.