And? How did it go?
Haha, actually much of the damage remain unnoticed because most of the observation that appear on a search are recent. But I know that the ids will be as good a computer vision id which trouble me more because they are on the observation which have just been posted too and are more noticeable. The damage is hidden, thought it may be small.
You can sort observations by “date updated” in the Identify module if you are concerned that new IDers have been running rampant misidentifying old insect observations.
I see no reason to assume that people are incapable of making cautious, judicious IDs using the basic guidance provided by the iNat team. This does not mean they will never make any mistakes, but as you say, it is likely that these are mistakes that might well have happened if the observer had used the CV, so I fail to see what additional harm is being done if people are moving observations from “insects” (where they may not be seen by specialists) to “lepidoptera” or “coleoptera” (where they are likely to be seen by experts who are also likely to recognize the commonly confused species in other insect orders). The ID-a-thon explicitly did not suggest that new IDers should confirm observations where they lack expertise.
You are also assuming that new IDers are focusing on old observations, which may or may not be the case.
@spiphany ok…
I met my personal goals for the id-a-thon! 10,000 identifications and working to expand my range beyond the US!