Identification Etiquette on iNaturalist - Wiki

That is a fair point, and one easily forgotten by non-app users like me. For now I added this note in the introduction:

I also put a note next to the mention of the Withdraw button. If you see other specific references that could be especially confusing for app users without further notation, definitely feel free to point them out.

I would be curious to hear from others who do most or all of their identification work via the apps. I am pretty clueless about what the process looks like there. That said, though, I want to keep the focus of this tutorial more on the principles and etiquette of being a helpful identifier and community member, and not so much on the mechanics of identifying on different platforms.

2 Likes

Iā€™m glad you added this information.

There is a feature request to add a link from the iOS app, preferably in a header/footer, to the iNaturalist website help page. If you think it could be useful, please vote for the feature:

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/link-to-inat-s-help-page-on-ios-app/18693/18

2 Likes

I donā€™t know if this qualifies (hopefully it isnā€™t widespread), but maybe we should add:
Do not deliberately add incorrect IDs as a way to get more ā€œeyesā€ onto an observation.

I saw a conversation in the Real-Time discussions tab today where an identifier admitted to doing this to someone elseā€™s observation because they werenā€™t getting responses via PMs or tagging.

1 Like

ā€¦I just learned there is a name for this behaviour: Cunninghamā€™s Law . Thatā€™s what I get for not visiting the iNat forums for 1.5 years. :laughing:
So, should a point re: malicious and/or joke IDs be added, or do we think itā€™s a fringe case?

2 Likes

Itā€™s actually there, as part of the ā€œAssume Good Intentionsā€ paragraph:

4 Likes

How about one that re-orders or adds pictures of different species and then makes a new ID based on the pictures that didnā€™t previously exist or was n:th picture earlier?

But thatā€™s neither malicious nor joking.

2 Likes

I suppose it could maybe be a joke ID if someone picks a CV suggestion that they know is incorrect just because they find it humorous, but thatā€™s a probably a stretch in most cases (and itā€™s easier to assume good intent when they are just following the platformā€™s own suggestions).

Definitely not malicious or equivilant to gaming the system to induce corrective IDs, though.

1 Like

If that were ever done maliciously by an observer, it might be something to address for ā€œobservation etiquette,ā€ but not sure it really fits in this topic. Personally I havenā€™t seen that happen very often, and when it does, itā€™s usually a newer user still figuring out how the system works. If I had already left an identification on the observation, it would definitely bother me if the photos were subsequently changed to a different organism. Hopefully when the next-generation notification system comes online, weā€™ll be able to receive notifications about changes like that.

2 Likes

I am a new user on Inaturalist but I find the etiquette for disagreeing with observations is very poor. People will just post alternative IDs without giving any reason, feels like I am being trolled sometimes. How hard is it to give a short note describing why you disagree?

3 Likes

This is a common complaint, and the answer is, it depends. Some identifiers are very prolific, and wouldnā€™t have the time to comment on every ID. But the vast majority are happy to explain specific IDs if you ask them with an @ tag in a comment or in a private message.

7 Likes

When you are working through a lot of observations, it can be very hard. I think we discussed this in another thread once, and the consensus was that while it is polite to say why you disagree, it isnā€™t required; however if someone comes back later and asks why, then it is good form to give them an answer.

5 Likes

Communication goes both ways - I find if you ask for an explanation, you are very likely to get one. Most identifiers are happy to share their expertise with someone who is actively engaged on iNat and curious enough to ask for their reasons. However, there are also lots of abandoned accounts started by people who seem to have no intention of coming back. Writing explanations for every ID would mean spending a lot of time on shouting into the wind without anyone ever coming back to read the notes. So a lot of identifiers may not want to waste their time on that unless/until someone asks.

17 Likes

Iā€™m sorry but I really donā€™t agree. It isnā€™t okay to bump into people on a footpath because you are in a hurry. Courtesy is universal, but I guess these days a lot of people donā€™t see it that way.

1 Like

I agree, and I donā€™t see the two as being equivalent.

Absolutely agree here. Iā€™m just saying that an identifier not leaving a detailed note on every single identification is not a signal of discourtesy. One of the ā€œprime directivesā€ on iNaturalist is that we try to assume good intentions in others. Given the high ratio of observers to identifiers on iNaturalist, I consider myself fortunate just to get IDs on my observations, agreeing or not, comment or not. If I think they are wrong, I can politely ask them to explain their ID. As was already mentioned,

13 Likes

I was pleased to see this so prominent.

1 Like

Again, it is polite, and encouraged, but assuming good intentions is for everyoneā€¦the observer just as much as the identifier.

While it is certainly preferable to include a comment, and also good etiquette (detailed in point 2, as you pointed out, and yes, the topic of this thread), there are many reasons why people might not do so that are neither ā€œtrollingā€ nor lazy. See here for some of them: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/comments-made-when-suggesting-alternative-identifications-or-corrections/13823

Ultimately, iNat is a free platform. Nobody is being paid to participate, so people have their own legitimate reasons for how they allocate their limited time and energy while on it. You donā€™t have to agree or like their reasoning, but they are still valid, and you, as an observer, need to assume good intentions.

Notice, also: The people in that thread said they would reply when contacted to explain their disagreement.

4 Likes

Perhaps I can explain a bit.

At the moment, iNaturalist has 2,000,000 accounts who have posted observations. Weā€™re closing in on 90,000,000 individual observations. Of thoseā€¦ guess how many people have posted identifications? 232,000. And thatā€™s ANY identifications.

The top 50 identifiers on the site have, between us, published 16,000,000 identifications. Thatā€™s an average of 320,000 per person. Almost 20% of all observations published get identified by one of the top 50. And 60% of all observations get identified by someone in the top 500.

That means that anything slowing down the identification process, like stopping to write explanations every time, is going to result in many fewer identifications for other users.

Now, of those nearly 90m observations, only 54m are research grade. There are 34m that still need an ID of some kind. Of those 34m, 12m are at species level already, meaning they only need a confirming ID (if the given one is correct). The rest will all require a minimum of 2 IDs to get to research grade, and only if they happen to be spotted by people who know exactly what they are. Most likely they will need 3 or 4 IDs applied to send them into the right subcategories where the appropriate experts will see them.

So say it averages out to 3 IDs needed for each of those, thatā€™s 102 MILLION identifications neededā€¦ done mostly by 500 unpaid volunteers.

Itā€™s important to understand, weā€™re not in a hurry because we want to rush through and get millions of identifications to our names. We hurry because we know how frustrating it is for people to never get an identification, and we know that as fast as weā€™re going, new observations are arriving faster than we work. The pile is only growing bigger by the minute.

I think most of us would love to have the time to sit down and compose careful messages about our reasoning every single time, but itā€™s a huge tradeoff. If it takes me 15 seconds to do an ID, and 10 minutes to write out my reasoning, thatā€™s 40 IDs that didnā€™t happen for other people.

All that said, there is a way you can get people to slow down and take more timeā€¦and thatā€™s to start doing IDs, and take some of the pressure away! Pick a species you know well, or thatā€™s easy to learn, and focus on it for a while - every ID you make means someone else can take a bit more time doing their own. If enough people become identifiers, we can eventually reach an equilibrium.

33 Likes

Courtesy would be to try helping to ID. I see many of your observations are already at Research Grade.

You appear from your comments on your own obs to have knowledge to offer.
Try identifying, and see what the work flow is like from the other side.

14 Likes

The way I see it, Iā€™m happy if someone drops a different ID in one of my records if Iā€™m not 100% sure of my ID, even if they donā€™t leave a comment. I can do my own homework to see if the ID is reasonable or not, and then query the IDer if Iā€™m still uncertain of their ID. The burden is mine, not theirs, to get a correct ID on my record.

17 Likes