How many identifications that agree are enough for an observation?

I have adding identifications for a few months now. What I don’t know is, at what point should I not bother adding another identification that agrees with all the others. I sometimes see two or three additional identifications after the observation has become “Research Grade”

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/44528772

If the observation is:
“Needs ID”, Then I will add an identification that agrees with the observers Identification.
“Research Grade” (with one other person’s identification agreeing with the observer’s identification). Should I add one more identification that agrees with the other two or should I use my time elsewhere?

When I don’t agree with the observer’s identification, I always add my identification if I can justify my opinion by describing features in the photo that point to a different or refined identification.

What is everyone’s opinion?

1 Like

i think it generally doesn’t hurt to make another agreeing identification, except to the extent that you could have been making an identification on an observation that needed an ID. it never hurts to make a disagreeing identification, if you’re sure about your identification.

3 Likes

Sometimes people just love to agree or maybe lazy to write a comment that they liked the observtion. It’s totally up to you to add a 3rd+ agreement (if you’re 100% sure in the id).

3 Likes

Speaking personally, please please please (and this is not directed at any particular identifier), if you’re going to add a 4th or 8th or whatever ID, put as much thought and effort as if it were the first or second. I’m not going to link to any examples, but I’ve found observations with 6, 7, 8+ wrong IDs on them and it just makes it that much more difficult to overturn. It’s not safe to assume that just because an observation already has 6 agreeing IDs that it must be correct.

17 Likes

I figure that a third identification is useful. It makes the identification more secure in the face of the occasional person who makes ignorant or malicious identifications.

Beyond three, additional identifications don’t help much, but I’ll add them sometimes if I really like the photo or if I’m working on a difficult species and want to say that I’ve seen it and agree that this one is right.

7 Likes

It is frustrating having those seemingly agreeing for no reason other than to add another ID to their count. Some of my own obs having 7-8 unnecessary IDs added to them as an example, or even blind agrees to something that is far off base. If 2-3 IDs is plenty, why add another one? Especially frustrating when I wake to 200+ notifications from a mass-agree spree from one IDer, that buries genuinely significant notifications. My thought is if you aren’t disagreeing or adding to a more detailed taxon level for a settled observation, 2-4 is plenty (2 is fine for an obvious one, but a 3rd/4th can be helpful to add confidence to tricky IDs). After that, what is it contributing?

9 Likes

Engagement by the person doing the agreeing.

I’m as annoyed by the bulk agreers causing notification spam as the next guy, but presumably the notification revamp will address this. Beyond that there is absolutely nothing objectionable to the 17th confirming ID.

6 Likes

I recently started using iNaturalist more and paying attention to the notifications, and I noticed the same behavior. I think it happens because the interface is designed with a tempting “agree” button but no equivalent “like” button. When a person wishes to express appreciation for the observation, hitting the “agree” button is the least effort way to do it. If there were a “like” or “favorite” button adjacent to “agree” I bet it would reduce superfluous IDs. It would also help to make the “agree” button not a one-click operation and make the user jump through another hoop to complete their agreeing ID.

7 Likes

Welcome to the forum! There is the favourite button for posts you like- I generally use it for beautiful photos, unusual obs/behaviours, or just generally interesting or useful obs

5 Likes

Welcome to the forum! There have been a couple feature requests like that:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/separate-like-and-bookmark-buttons/418
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/add-a-thank-you-like-button-to-ids-comments/4381

4 Likes

The favorite feature seems good to me, and the problem is more in how the user interface is laid out, which promotes the use of the agree button. In the web interface, the favorite button is usually scrolled off the screen by the time I reach the end of the identification comments. In the iOS app, the favorite button is unlabeled and not positioned near the agree button, nor is it among the buttons at the bottom of the screen (comment, suggest ID).

2 Likes

If an observation has research grade (at least two IDs), I almost never add my “agree” if the identification is correct. If not - yes, of course I add an ID then, disagreeing. I definitely cannot understand 5 or more IDs and even less the behaviour of mass agreers. To get their place in the leaderboard? I wonder, what do they do when tagged for a taxon they have no knowledge about but got theirselves in a high position among its identifiers by clicking many agrees? Though, I must admit, that in the sense of zoology, mass agreers may belong to different species. During my being on iNat, I have identified two species so far, but recently, I think, I encountered third one, needs more study. Though this one might be a hybrid.

3 Likes

If mass identifiers have a lot of spare time, there’s a great idea of adding annotations, that way you both adding more info to an observation and can find wrong ids, and there’re millions of observations to go!

2 Likes

I meant mass IDers who click agrees either on just anything - from plants to beetles in certain area, or on all fungi (absolutely all), or on several most obvious bird species wherever they happen to be observed. Never any annotations, just clicks.

1 Like

I know who they are, though there’re quite good iders too, so they can spend time with higher purpose.

As pointed out by jwidness, the objection is that it can make it much more difficult to overturn wrong IDs. Even 4 or 5 can be difficult to overturn if there’s only a few knowledgeable identifiers for a given taxon/area.

8 Likes

I will add a third or fourth, if I feel one might have been agreeing out of politeness ( = thank you for your ID) But not if two people I respect have already confirmed the ID.

1 Like

Whether an ID is correct or not is fully separate. I simply took issue with the notion that the n+1st agreeing, correct, ID “adds no value”. Obviously it does add value to whoever does the agreeing. You may not recognize that value, but they’re simply using the site differently from those who object.

There should be no expectation that one should use the site like this, and not like this, as long as everybody follows the community guidelines.

4 Likes

An nth agreeing ID might have both positive and negative aspects. So I felt your claim that there is “absolutely nothing objectionable” was too strong.

5 Likes

[quote=“jwidness, post:4, topic:13646, full:true”] I’ve found observations with 6, 7, 8+ wrong IDs on them and it just makes it that much more difficult to overturn. It’s not safe to assume that just because an observation already has 6 agreeing IDs that it must be correct.
[/quote]
I have mainly seen that with one horticultural species in particular: the Sago Cycad is often sold under the name “Sago Palm,” and so far, every instance I have seen has been thus misidentified, often unanimously.

3 Likes