I can click on it and it tries to run. But I can’t seem to change the parameters to my I’d after it runs. I could copy it someplace and modify it, but then I don’t know where to go to run it, if you know what I mean.
I’m working on really old plant observations in my area today
wow. there’s a reason a lot of these still need ID.
I’m finding plenty I can ID
well, you’re a better plant identifier than i am. i scanned though about 600 observations and ended up with maybe 25 species IDs that i felt good about. i might do some more later though. maybe they get easier as they get more recent.
If I started on page 1 and went through every single observation I would be bored to death. I jump around a lot so I do some really old ones and some not quite as old ones. I didn’t do anything uploaded after 2018 today. I did 60 IDs and moved 29 of those to RG.
Just out of curiosity I checked and found that out of the 8,216 verifiable plant observations that I have IDed (mine not included), 875 of them were submitted before 2017 (I joined iNat in Apr 2017) and 340 of those are now RG (I didn’t necessarily bring them to RG myself). Good to see that looking at old observations does make a difference.
Looks more encouraging than my pile of green - planty - broad leaves - sob.
You have flowers to play with!
Anyone willing to tackle a fresh delivery of dead fish from the West African project?
It’s that time again. Click click grumble grumble the identifiers fight song.
I should get myself some pom-poms if we’re going to sing the identifiers fight song.
Hmm, thinking about what to do today…maybe I should try to get something new IDed… will have a look around
Edit: Ended up with going into some Aculepeira in Europe, but this will probably extent to the US as well… not a lot of species around there :-)
I was going through Hymenoptera in Arizona and New Mexico and I skipped a weird looking bug only to find the ID an hour later, but I can’t refind the observation! https://bugguide.net/node/view/66904
I follow or fave those, so I get notified when someone else knows What That Is.
Duplicates seem fair to ID. Especially if notifying and asking the observer to delete the duplicate or if the identifier uses DQA to make the observation casual, which I do. And if an observer eventually deletes the observation the IDs also are deleted anyway.
If I run across obvious duplicates in the unknowns (as in same picture being used for two different observations by the same observer), I typically ID the older one and add a comment to the newer one saying something to the effect “same as this:” and add the URL for the one I’ve ID’d before marking it reviewed. I’m hoping this serves to redirect others to add their IDs to just one of the two observations.
I often come across observations where ID’ers just commented “duplicate” without providing a link to the second copy. If the observer only has a handful of observations, I may go try to find the other one and add the link to tie them together. However, if they have hundreds of observations to sort through it’s just faster and easier to simply put my ID on those and not bother spending time on trying to hunt down the second copy.
I consider duplicates to be too rare to worry about, even if I notice them, which I may not. People don’t post them on purpose. I identify duplicates – I don’t see a reason not to. I’ll often comment “duplicate” and move on, figuring that the observer can find the duplicate easily enough if he/she wants to. Perhaps I’ll start adding a link to the other copy, but maybe we’ll see.
Thank you for acknowleding this. I have, on occasion, posted duplicates because I forgot that I had already posted that observation. I had few enough observations at the time that I could easily catch the error; but for someone with many pages of observations, it may not be so easy.
One suggestion: if you have an idea what the organism is, and can’t remember whether you posted the observation already, use the search window in your own observations page.
Yes. I’ve posted duplicates occasionally, too. Dealing with backlog photos can be confusing. I usually keep them labeled (posted vs. not) but sometimes I just don’t know and have to go searching my observations to see if they’re already there – unless I forget.
Me too. As for IDing, I ID all observations I view.
I find a good way to prevent uploading duplicates yourself when working through a backlog of pictures is to open up the calendar page for the day you’re working on to see what you’ve already uploaded for that day. I imported a bunch of stuff from Flickr and that’s even better because it will automatically warn you if the picture you are about to import is already associated with an existing observation. I wished that feature would exist for regular uploads as well - there’s a feature request for that.