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.
jwidness
4
Related topics
| Topic | Replies | Views | Activity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adding unnecessary identifications to unique observations? | 43 | 1351 | January 6, 2025 | |
| People identifying sightings identified previously when it is unnecessary | 101 | 3926 | April 27, 2026 | |
| Why do some observation receive plenty of agreeing IDs? | 149 | 5706 | February 7, 2023 | |
| Is a single additional ID enough to have an observation safely confirmed | 28 | 1440 | February 7, 2024 | |
| Why You Should Add IDs to Research Grade Observations | 38 | 2934 | January 25, 2023 |