I do it in various ways. Sometimes I just add ID, sometimes a standard copy-paste note, like “this one is not IDable without seeing also the underside”, or “this species does not occur in Europe”, sometimes I add a lengthhier note, but rarely, because it often happens like today: I corrected a misidentification and added explanation of the differences between the two species. The user thanked me and kept their erroneous ID. I may be becoming grumpy, but it will be a longer time until I add a longer annotation next time (if not asked). Anyway, with annotations or without them, it takes me much longer than 20 minutes to go through three pages of observations.
I share your frustration. I try to educate people, but find myself repeating the same thing over and over. Part of my problem is that I don’t always encounter the same mis-identification, so it takes me a while to identify what people have mis-id’d, then writing out the explanation.
A question though - where do you store the standard copy-paste notes? I use Windows based software, and have tried using Word, but find that the links don’t always come through.
This is mainly an identification frustration. It’s my preferred ‘role’ on iNat, but some days it drives me nuts! I guess it comes with the nit-picking that drives identifiers.
Yeah, I’ve gotten pretty fast at typing what the field marks are when people ask, most people say thank you and some ask follow up questions which is great. My favorite though was I guy who asked how a super common very easy species was ID’d (so he doesn’t know), and when I told him he proceeded to expound to me about how variable field marks are and therefore not reliable. I love being lectured by people who have never read any books on the topic and have no field experience.
I’ve never had that happen! Depending on the day, I’d fly into a rage, though (this is one of those days.)
I just have a word file with standard phrases in a directory called inaturalist :-)
To speed it up, I recommend either breaking it up into annotations in a separate session from id’s, or break it up within a session by going through the same page of results sequentially. In the latter case in the Identify modal, that means you can stay on the id pane for one pass through a page, then stay on the annotation pane for the other pass.
Beeftext tool, https://beeftext.org/
For example this output takes me 3 letters to type:
you have variable species per photo
I don’t have 15+ years identifying moths. I do not consider myself an ‘expert’, but I have experience. If I don’t know, I’ll say that and perhaps consult more experienced users. Often I look at a users profile before making a comment - with new users I am more likely to add more information in the hope that it will be a learning experience.
Thank you for that information! I had not thought of doing the two tasks separately. The switching back and forth between categories is part of the annotation delay. And I will investigate the copy/paste option. That’s one of the reasons I love the Forum!
Identification time is incredibly variable. I check all Lucanidae (Coleoptera) and all insects from Nicaragua. Sometimes take a minute, sometimes need to take books, and look for what a species could be, or just to remember the name. If I do it each day, takes me one hour or two. If I let it for 3 or 4 days, it takes me the full day. I try to promote iNaturalist in Nicaragua and most of what people hope, after sharing nice pictures, is getting an identification, so part of the promotion is trying to give identifications. I also resend ( @ ) some call for identifications to some collegues.
I’ve averaged 12 IDs per day over the last 1,811 days. I try to provide feedback, associate observations with Projects, and add Annotations as much as possible. My ratio is 43:1. I feel like education is an important part of the identification process.
I try not to ID above genus level (unless it’s to enable annotations), just agree with coarse IDs, and dogpile on RG observations.
Thanks egordon88 for the nod to identifiers.
After 3 months, I’m done with Chamaesaracha (plant) in Arizona and New Mexico and less than 20 pages remain (mostly Texas and northern Mexico). I’m slow, but making progress.
I haven’t done this, but I should: Create a journal post, however short it might be, on distinguishing commonly confused species (or other taxa) and paste a link to it in each incorrect ID.
What’s “commonly confused”? Well, if I find myself spending more time repeating the same explanation than reviewing IDs, that’s common enough for me to copy one or two of those explanations, paste the content into a new journal post, and copy the URL into my computer’s notepad so I can paste it into future reviews. I could add a short explanation, too. For example, paste this (with the correct link code) into my notepad: “These two species are commonly confused, but it’s easier to tell them apart when they’re fruiting. For the full info, see my post on [link:]Telling A from B by Their Fruit[end link].”
Then I can skim the grid view of observations of A for misidentifications of B that show fruit, open each in a new tab, and make the same ID with the same note in a whole slew of them at once. Next, I’ll skim a grid view of observations of B for misidentifications of A that show fruit and do the same to those.
Wouldn’t it be a good idea to have a Zoom session now and then to share tips and tricks for reviewing IDs? I’ll bet there are a dozen things I do that I’ve never thought about sharing, and a million things I could learn from others that would make my work even easier!
where do you store the standard copy-paste notes? I use Windows based software, and have tried using Word, but find that the links don’t always come through.That’s where knowing a little HTML can be handy. I store the content as unformatted text in Notepad on the Mac OS/iOS, and there are similar applications where you could do this in Windows. It has been two years since I worked in that environment, so I would have to poke around in it again to figure out good suggestions.
This is also where doing a Zoom session could be handy. If I write out the HTML for a link here, you won’t see it because it will produce the link—the baked good, not the recipe you can follow to bake one yourself.
And I could show you what I do on a Mac, then let you show us your screen and talk you through ways to do it in Windows.
I corrected a misidentification and added explanation of the differences between the two species. The user thanked me and kept their erroneous ID.That’s perfectly understandable, @jurga_li. When I see that happen, I’ll add a comment that mentioning a few other folks I can rely on to make the correct ID. When two or three of them respond with an ID, the recalcitrant user will become the Maverick on a correctly identified RG observation.
Yep. I have followed @nathantaylor for a while. Good stuff!
I think Jurga is talking more about how it’s repeating anyway, there’re some reasons for that, users can miss or not being able to read messages, not care about what people write and/or rely on cv anyway, or just make honest mistakes.
Thank you very much for your advice! A Zoom meeting would be great, although I don’t have the program installed.
It’s also one of the worst videocall ways privacy-wise, even written in its Wiki page, you can look up articles about what alternatives you can use because when covid started we had to use Zoom all the time.