If I see I am close to the top rank it encourages me to focus on IDing that species more
1 Like
Fun question and having a look I am rather surprised that none of my personal top 10 most IDed made it to the list… It starts with number 11, which in itself is also surprising, because I actually rarely ID this species to that level, but only give genus IDs (as species IDs are almost always a guess in this case, which I am not taking)… but I guess as others ID them to species level and those observations are sitting at that level, they count for my IDs 
Dolomedes fimbriatus (1170 
)
Argiope aemula (1164 )
Diaea dorsata (842 )
Oxyopes heterophthalmus (666 
)
Cyrtophora cicatrosa (411🕷️)
Oxyopes lineatus (273 )
Argiope catenulata (236🕷️)
Stegodyphus dumicola (213 )
Stegodyphus sarasinorum (156🕷️)
Arctosa cinerea (126 )
Agesander ruficornis (103 … first none-spider 
)
Oxyopes ramosus (98 )
Dolomedes plantarius (94 … same issue as with #1)
Oxyallagma dissidens (93🦋)
Diaea livens (81🕷️)
Stegodyphus lineatus (67🕷️)
Pardosa amentata (65 )
Arctosa leopardus (62 )
Alopecosa barbipes (46🕷️)
Arctosa maculata (46🕷️)
Tetragnatha nigrita (39 )
Oxyopes globifer (20🕷️)
Pirata piscator (16🕷️)
Stegodyphus mimosarum (15🕷️)
Stegodyphus africanus (10 )
Stegodyphus pacificus (9🕷️)
Sphenorhina obliterata (5🦋)
Alopecosa pinetorum (4🕷️)
Membracis caquetensis (4🦋)
Argiope legionis (3 )
…my focus is pretty clear I guess 
I am top IDer for the genus Argiope (17202), Stegodyphus (639) and the family Pisauridae (28296)
2 Likes
Yes but in the other direction. If I helped to get a new to iNat ID - I do NOT want to see my name on a painfully short leaderboard. The busy busy ones - yes, fine.
3 Likes
I’m an eternal second :') Which is alright, I’m already a bit anxious when I think about those leaderboards where I’m in the top 10
4 Likes
Only becomes a problem for me when people tag me for Maryland Milkwort in southeast US east of the Mississippi River. There are a few look-a-likes over there that are hard to differentiate. On the west side of the river there aren’t any look-a-likes.
3 Likes
100 pre-mavericks done in an hour. Yeah! 
8 Likes
Thank you - those easy clicks are so rewarding.
Another batch. Done!
2 Likes
Not nearly as easy as the yaupon agreements. Sometimes I’m not sure that the 2 people have the correct species and will only put genus level. Sometimes I can narrow it down further than the 2 people. Sometimes the first person was right and the 2 new IDs are wrong. Sometimes all 3 people are wrong.
3 Likes
Procrastinated today and did 300 obs of Justicia, IDing J. americana and J. ovata
6 Likes
Needed easy clicks - using tiwane’s keyboard shortcuts (P for Plant and then) L for fLower and R for fRuit. Faidherbia albida on phenology graph had TWO flowering obs.
Getting there a slice a day - aiming at a useful phenology graph.
And done.
4 Likes
Annotating phenology can be very useful to help with sorting out IDs. E.g. compare these phenology graphs of Erigeron annuus from the Northeast vs. Southern Appalachians in the US. What’s up with the shoulder of blooming plants in the NE graph in Sep-Oct? Before I started a major cleanup effort, the Southern App graph actually looked similar, but after I went through those observations and kicked out all the misidentified Symphyotrichums via disagreement, that graph became a lot cleaner-looking. No more bumpiness in the fall, just a gradual decline of this summer bloomer. Asteraceae are tough but even if you don’t know how to sort out Erigeron vs. Symphyotrichum you can probably recognize a plant in bloom. Annotating those will help the more seasoned identifiers to target e.g. specifically all Erigerons annotated as blooming in October to sort out any misidentified asters. Don’t forget to also check the observations already at Research Grade! Bumping back the misidentifications among those will hopefully improve the CV suggestions by eliminating them from the training set.
16 Likes
Just learned that Justicia ovata var. lanceolata is now Justicia lanceolata. 
Now I have to go fix a bunch of IDs. I didn’t put the var on most of them so curators changing all Justicia ovata var. lanceolata to J. lanceolata wouldn’t help.
5 Likes
(i was wondering what you were doing…)
1 Like
Just came across an observation with a part of bone obviously sawed. Would you DQA?
Do you mean it looks like the bone was cut by a human? If so, I wouldn’t necessarily check the Not Wild part of the Data Quality Assessment; it would depend on where the bone was. Maybe it was dragged way out in the woods by a non-human scavenger?
Ask the observer - then decide after their feedback.
If. You ever get an answer?
Since observers rarely respond to questions, I have taken to marking things “captive/cultivated” first and changing how I’ve marked them later, after (if) I receive a response.
If the observation is for the bone (not a scavenger that dragged it away), I’d mark it “captive/cultivated” and also leave a comment saying something like, “I assume that this bone is at this location because a human discarded it. Therefore, I marked it “captive.” If the animal was wild and the bone is at the same location where the animal died, it should be marked “wild.” Please explain in a comment and I’ll change how I’ve marked it if necessary.”
4 Likes
I saw you did Justicia! I was chagrined to see that most of my IDs, years old, were wrong. I suppose I thought there was only one species in the genus around here (I came late to botany, sorry). Thanks for setting us straight.
1 Like
Thank you. There was no observer comment on the observation, and last activity was in Jul. '23. I marked not wild and added a comment “If observation is for the bone, marked “not wild” due to location and bone sawed.”
3 Likes
I was separating J. americana from J. ovata at first then I learned that J. ovata had been split. So I went back and changed a bunch to J. lanceolata. Then I withdrew a bunch that I wasn’t sure about. Spent way too long working on that.
4 Likes