I love when I get an extra comment on an ID or an ID correction, even if very brief/curt. It feels like winning the Lotto. (OK, maybe not a million dollars good but at least free ticket good. 
) I interpret it as: “You’ve made a mistake. I’m correcting it, but I also think you show enough promise/initiative that I’m going to add some info. you can learn from, and this observation was moderately interesting.” I’ve seen very few comments I thought were rude over the last 5 years, maybe 3 or so. Now, I’m willing to admit I might just be bad at deciphering what a friend of mine used to refer to as “tone and 'tude,” but then ignorance is bliss, and I get to go on thinking well of most everyone on here. And I do learn from those comments–maybe not as much as an expert might hope–but I do find them valuable. Generally speaking though, if I think someone might be a bit rude, I just make the correction and move on. (Secretly I hope to win them over some other day with a less awful attempt at ID.) Plus, even the best teachers after long days sometimes get a little cranky. That said, if someone is just awful (humiliates or belittles) then I’d probably contact a curator. I’m sorry for your negative experience, and I hope you find that those kinds of moments are few and far between.
That’s why I said “not necessarily”
People hate not knowing stuff, and people hate being told so.
(Homo sapiens are all like that btw.: we hate insecurity.)
So as a “scientist” I always try to point out that more often than not there is no simple answer in the way a layperson would prefer it, be it on topics like climate, pollution or Carex species.
If you need the genitalia of a spider for an ID, then it is like that. Period. Being pointed towards that fact usually upsets laypersons independent of the tone, because in their terms it will sound arrogant, petty and picky no matter how you put it. Words like “classism” and “gatekeeping” might be thrown in scientists direction. People will be upset that they are not instantly presented with a handy solution that exactly fits their level of knowledge.
But it cannot be helped. If genitals, papillae or DNA are needed for an ID, then we cannot ignore or change this fact just so people feel better about it.
There is yet another thing I wanted to mention: if a correction sounds impolite, aggressive or plain weird to you, you might consider that this guy could be dealing with serious issues. There are quite a few high functioning autistic or aspergerian taxonomists. Others are dealing with chronical pains (old age, disease ect). There may be people who recently lost someone they love. You name it. There are a lot of reasons why some people might have difficulties to express themselves in a nice manner. In this light you might understand that not every response will be in the best tradition of your favorite school of good behavior.
There is another thread where ‘people’ complain that the scientists dump an ID without explaining why. Each obs, each person, is different. We are vehemently not - one size fits all - on iNat. Scientists hate wasting their time explaining when the observer has already moved on.
That has not been my experience. An explanation is often sufficient, and accepted. I am not a professional moth taxonomist, but am experienced. If I know genital dissection is the only way to separate species, I say so. Never had any problems. I’m also willing to ask for help, and look at the contents of the reply.
I have seen some people flatly state that it’s impossible to identify spiders without looking at the genitals. In fact, it is often not known how to identify spider species within a genus from photos alone, but it is certainly possible in the vast majority of cases. The tricky bit is that it’s often only possible to learn how to ID from photos by finding enough photographs of living spiders which were later dissected to confirm their identity. Photos of “preserved” specimens usually aren’t enough. In some regions of the world this work has already been done for most families of spiders, in others much work remains to be done before we’ll be able to ID from photos.
There are exceptions, where two or more closely related species are visually indistinguishable, but this seems to be relatively rare compared to the number of species which are visually distinct.
So if you run into someone who says that spiders cannot be identified without looking at the genitals, don’t believe them unless they’re talking about specific species instead of spiders in general. Nonetheless, it may not be known how to ID any species within whole families of spiders in your part of the world. This is true even for some families and genera in the US and Canada or Europe. (E.g. Dictynidae, so far as I can tell.)
I’ve read that before Peterson’s “A Field Guide to the Birds” was published in 1934, there was a similar subculture of bird taxonomists trained to identify museum specimens who insisted that it was impossible to identify birds without a specimen in hand. (And that some continued to insist this was true for some decades afterwards.) We’re in the pre-guide era of spider identification.
Hey, autistic guy here just reminding you autism is a neurotype not inherently a “serious condition” and we are responsible for our actions too. If you use autism as an excuse to be a jerk you’re harming autistic people (and the person you’re being a jerk to too). Also the rate of autistic (and adhd) people on iNat is sky high compared with the general population. So yes assuming a taxonomy expert is neurotypical isn’t a great strategy but we still gotta take responsibility for our part in the community.
Also don’t forget some inat users ARE neurotypical and this severe condition can cause obsession with social status and indirect communication 
I think actual “serious offenders” on iNat are more likely to have cluster B personality disorders. Being socially awkward is definitely not a reason to insult people (I know at least one user who does that a lot an it’s hard to just ignore).
Cluster B? I do not know that term (ex Psych Nurse), but I’m not up to date on Dx.
I think it’s best not to try to diagnose problematic people with neurodifferences or mental illness. It just adds to various stigmas. If someone’s a jerk, they are a jerk. Yes there are deeper reasons usually. They still need to not do it.
Sure! It’s speculation. Just wanted to clarify that it’s scientifically proven that autism isn’t linked to violent behaviour, so they’re jerks for other reasons.
yes, autistic people are much more likely to be victims of violence and less likely to cause it. Only possible exception is some people get into meltdowns that they may hit themselves or accidentally hurt others. Not exactly violence but may appear that way.
Thanks @wendyjegla that’s a very understanding response. I recently had an experience where I was helping out with a university wildlife camera prac, and while looking through the observations posted on iNat found that two species were being confused, with the less common one being identified as the more common. I suggested the correct ID for a number of the mis-IDs and explained the (quite obvious) markers that distinguished the two, in a friendly and detailed manner. Also went to the trouble of doing the same for maybe 8-10 IDs, though my wording was getting briefer each time. A week or so later I saw that a lot more observations had been added (by other students in the group) and with a lot of them mis-ID’d. I thought about correcting some more of them, but then thought, what the hell, I’ve done my best - and I have to admit that my tendency toward a frustrated curtness in such situations was one reason I didn’t pursue it. A month of two later I was in the field with one of these students and raised this issue. He told me that there had been an exam question around the preferred habitats of the species (they have fairly clear preferences) and he had answered it on the basis of the many mis-IDs, not having seen my efforts. Left me feeling rather guilty that I had not done more.
Yes, it’s a wild spectrum with all sorts of (un)conditions. For me, I made the experience repeatedly that I am not very good in understanding everyday behavior of people, so I tend to offend them. But I know I do not want to offend anybody, people just feel like that when not treated in a regular way.
I agree that it is within the responsibility of everybody including neuroatypicals to not be a jerk.
But I think a person is a jerk if he assumes someone else is a jerk for not being able to display “the right behavior”.
I had to learn to be a nice, polite guy. I actually am! But I had to learn to display those signals that would allow a “normal” person to see it. It is an act. It is like being colorblind and just learn that the grass is green but not actually see it. (I have a color weakness. I learned that grass becomes brown in winter when I was seven … I was being laughed at because I asked why trees loose their leaves in autumn but the grass stays green …)
Frankly I am tired of being an actor for my fellow citizens. And I still do not see the point of this act in the first place! Since I can learn that act, I am assuming everybody can learn that act. So, someone acting friendly doesn’t show wether he is or not.
I agree 100% that being neuroatypical is not inherently a serious condition, but it can be very tough to deal with neurotypicals at times. Being neurotypical seems to be a heavily underestimated condition, and there isn’t even a diagnosis, cure or meds. ;)
“neurotypical … can cause obsession with social status and indirect communication”
I love that line. Spot on.
I should add that when referring to being neuroatypical I am not explicitely writing about autism.
Argh. No good deed goes unpunished… 
I don’t explain my IDs. I don’t think it’s worth the effort. If I get asked about an ID, I’ll explain my thinking.
This whole thread is another reminder of why there may not be more people doing IDs. Complaining about how people ID could be made a category on this forum.
I failed to follow my own rule of ‘dont assume anyone on iNat is neurotypical’ which is a good rule. Sorry if i myself appeared rude but just i get tired of neurotypical people attaching ‘on the autism spectrum’ to someone just because they are jerks. But iNat is such a magnet for neurodivergent people, especially both autistic and ADHD. I love it, but for sure it offers its own challenges, especially for the N/t people who find themselves here I even made a thread about this if you are interested in it, https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/neurodiversity-and-inaturalist/17268
That’s definitely not the major reason there’re not more people doing ids.