This is certainly a topic I am interested in and can sympathize with. I feel like the foundation of sharing identification information is creating identification guides to link to (like the collection here or here). Otherwise, it’s simply infeasible to keep up with identifications and explain the details. I also like doing a taxon group by taxon group approach in line with the resource written so that I can keep the same link copied to the clipboard and distribute it to as many observers as possible at the time of writing.
To me, it seems like identifications to engage with observers generally fall into three categories: 1. Post a link to identification, very short explanation. 2. More involved post; actively trying to engage the observer with the information. 3. Following up with the observer to actively recruit for more observations/identifications. Depending on the user, this can translate into actually mentoring and training of new identifiers.
In my opinion, a good mix of guide creation, speed identification with or without links to guides, and training new people who can help to fill your shoes when needed to really excel in spreading the identification information is probably best. And yes, it is a lot, especially for a group like Euphorbia that has 185 species and about 65,000 currently documented for the US, but it can be extremely satisfying.
The main problem I always run into these days are time constraints/differences in where I’m interested in devoting my time. The amount of engagement you get is proportional to how much time your willing to invest. I suspect that the time needed to provide good engagement scales exponentially with increased observations making things more challenging. Training too many complete newbies can be draining, especially if the only species in their area are common. I’ve always wanted to try to recruit more folks from areas with a lot of the common species specifically to help curate, but even finding those individuals can be challenging with the large numbers of observations and observers.
Another problem is actually managing to communicate with all of them once you find them. I usually get ID requests daily from around the world and usually end up with about 3-5 each week that require a well thought out reply. Other things that sometimes complicates this for me is that I have a lot of undescribed variation (whether it be new species or populational variation) to deal with in some areas, so I can’t even really point to an article or a journal post I’ve made to resolve the situation. This is particularly true in Mexico, where I probably get half of my ID requests from. I sometimes wonder if it might save time to finish up describing and publishing the variation, but given my procrastination, it probably hasn’t gotten that bad yet. :-)