Identify identifiers IDs

[DianaStuder]

I regret that thoughtful responses are gone too.

a short response is much easier to type out a hundred times

Use a text expander as tiwane suggested. Then you only need to craft your answer, kind and informative, once.

There is a HUGE need for identifiers on iNat. We need ALL hands on deck. iNat burdens a very few identifiers. 130 so yes they do fray around the edges - ask me how I know.

Burnt out identifiers sink under the flood of incoming obs.

This iNatter abandoned iNat in 2020 since we cannot manage notifications. We had 2 small improvements in April.

PS Apologies for the triple posting. UNlisted again. Shutting down a thoughtful conversation. I hope this is neutral enough to survive?

[jasonhernandez74]

@DianaStuder

We need ALL hands on deck.

Yes, we do. By the time we’ve been on iNat for a while – and even more so those of us who have also found the forum – we don’t really “know nothing about nature” anymore.

And – if I may say so – when I seem to be complaining that my observations aren’t reaching RG fast enough, the real frustration underneath is that it doesn’t seem like my identifying efforts are being reciprocated. I have 1,364 observations, and have made 77,136 identifications. If we use Diana’s average of 2.5 IDs, then it would take approximately 3,410 people – one for every 22 that I have identified for – to get all to RG.

This is not fully accurate because in reality there are some people for whom I have provided more than one, and in turn, there are also people who have provided me with more than one ID. Still, it is thought-provoking: what if one in every 22 iNat users became an active identifier?

[david99]

@jasonhernandez74

Still, it is thought-provoking: what if one in every 22 iNat users became an active identifier?

I suspect that most (90%, or more?) of iNat users can’t or shouldn’t be active identifiers. The only thing worse than the current situation of far too few identifiers would be more identifiers, but without the ability to correctly identify the things they are identifying.

[Thunderhead]

Which is exactly the attitude that makes people not want to even try, because we don’t want to make mistakes and have opinions like that loom large and make us feel incompetent.

[egordon88]

I noticed today that 1,500 users have helped identify my observations. Patience is a virtue, but frustration is understandable.

[swords]

I think it would be helpful if species were given ratings for an area in terms of how difficult it is to identify, based on occurrence of contested ID’s and how closely they resemble something else and so on.

[catsear]

I suspect that most (90%, or more?) of iNat users can’t or shouldn’t be active identifiers.

I think the less-skilled users could help by identifying things at a very coarse level (Unknown to Plants, for example). Ideally, things which can be definitely pinned to the kingdom level shouldn’t be put in Unknown anyway, but with the way things stand, this could help. I noticed that quite a lot of the Unknowns if the areas I look at (perhaps 70%) are in the plant kingdom, and often class Dicots (though that requires more skill than just Plants).

[kjerstiandco]

As much as I understand and share your frustration with the (sometimes shockingly poor) ID quality that can come from newer identifiers, it’s worth remembering that they’re going to learn as they make mistakes (haven’t we all been corrected on an ID, had someone explain why, and used that information going forwards?). There will be a point at which most new IDers (assuming they are genuinely trying to learn) will start to be more of a help than a hindrance. So yes, I too get very, very, tired of having a research grade observation knocked back by a totally incorrect ID, but if we want more IDers, we’re going to have to push through and let them learn, at least until iNat starts providing more learning resources for new IDers.

[david99]

I don’t mean to belittle or discourage anyone that is legitimately trying to provide accurate ID’s, what I meant by my statement is that most iNat users aren’t even at the level of enthusiastic beginner when it comes to being able to provide ID’s. Most users post a few interesting pictures of something they see and want to remember/identify/share, and that’s it. Some percentage of users are forced to use iNat for class, and don’t even want to be posting the observations that they post.

I say this as someone that has tried to make a dent in the vast numbers of plants in insects in my area that need ID, only to discover (sometimes months or years later) than many of my ID’s of a particular taxa were wrong or overly confident. For every one of my plant ID’s that someone corrected, there’s probably several out there that are still wrong.

[matthew_connors]

There are so many new users these days that there are just so many more observations being added than when I started out on iNat almost a decade ago. And don’t get me wrong, this is very much a good thing! I love seeing all the sightings from everyone, and I love that new people are getting out there and learning about nature. But as an identifier, I simply can’t keep up with the sheer volume of observations being added. In my first few years on iNat, I added ‘regular’ identifications to a huge range of taxa spanning half a dozen or more different orders. But now I struggle to keep up, and even these days with my focus narrowed to just a single family I still have a small backlog most of the time. We have welcomed many new skilled identifiers in that time but it is still not enough to keep up. We definitely need to support and encourage identifiers, both those already on the platform and new ones who will be of great help to us in future.

[dlevitis]

This is largely how I ID, because most of the things I am confident in IDing, many other people are also IDing. So I look for cases where the IDing is dead easy (there is only one large yellow slug in my county, only one wild hazel, etc.) and give some people the satisfaction of getting their observations IDed.

@jasonhernandez74

And – if I may say so – when I seem to be complaining that my observations aren’t reaching RG fast enough, the real frustration underneath is that it doesn’t seem like my identifying efforts are being reciprocated.

I think it is important to bear in mind that some observations, like my own described just above, take a few seconds each, others take even a person who knows well might need to put in several minutes or more to be confident, others only a few people in the world can make correctly with hard work, and others simply can’t be made to species. So reciprocation of an ID for an ID doesn’t strike me as a reasonable or even desirable standard. If each of the thousands of users I’ve IDed for were to reciprocate with the same number of IDs, many of them would get it wrong, which I don’t want. Many of them also have no idea how to ID, or are simply not interested in doing so, and it would be foolish to demand it of them. There is no community expectation of reciprocal identifying, and there should not be.

[Vireya]

I am overwhelmed at the moment due to the algal bloom in South Australia. Some people photograph all the dead fish on a beach and upload them without IDs. As an identifier who often checks out Unknowns I am faced with page after page of dead fish:

I don’t know why people aren’t IDing their own observations - I’ve left a couple of comments asking people to, but that doesn’t seem to have helped. For the observations to go into the project that is keeping track of them they need to be IDed to some level, then annotated as Dead. I don’t mind adding the annotations, but I am sick of the identifications.

(And I don’t know much about fish, so I’m just IDing them as “Ray-finned fish”, which the observers should also be capable of doing.)

[grampianshiker]

I feel for you, because I’ve been seeing the same thing but very quickly got put off identifying them - partly due to frustration, partly to a complete ignorance of what ID to put (entering ‘fish’ quickly showed me it’s not that simple… you say ‘ray-finned fish’ should cover it, so that’s good to know), partly to an increase in spring plant observations to go through. I’ll try to start helping with some, though I’m not sure I could face doing hundreds a day even if I had time.* It is definitely frustrating that people can’t be bothered even adding an ID of Animal, even if they’re not confident with fish.

*This is where it would be really nice to be able to do bulk IDs!

[anfra1969]

So true and proposed multiple times before without taken yet into consideration.

Either careful and responsible people are suportet better to develop identification skills by measures like above. Or the strategy is to further wait for a hymenoptera expert from acdemia with masochistic attitude.
The current system is anyhow not built to prevent the third group of over-enthusiastic self-declared authodidactic experts. But even this could improve if the potential damage would be better visualized, e.g. by above means.

[DianaStuder]

We already have a swathe of wrong IDs from enthusiastic newbies, who abandon wrong IDs, and leave ‘cleanup on aisle 3’ for whoever to sort out.

We need a better way to encourage and mentor new identifiers. I have been on iNat years enough, to delete old IDs of my own - how could I have … now I know at least … IDs are not carved in stone, some that were RG get changed with taxonomy, or a new taxon specialist sweeping thru. Since CV adds about a thousand sp each month, that also becomes steadily more effective.

Since I asked for the Pre-Maverick project I am enjoying digging down to the last ones trapped in broad IDs below Family for the Western Cape

My next target will be our other project Placeholder Backup for Africa

@david99

(90%, or more?) of iNat users can’t or shouldn’t be active identifiers

With a mentor, they can ID or annotate. Most - especially observers with hundreds or even thousands of obs. If you are interested enough in … for thousands of pictures, yes you CAN pay it forward, add value in turn, to obs by others. PS see the dead fish example below.

@swords

given ratings for an area in terms of how difficult it is to identify

yesterday we had one obs, my trusted taxon specialists agreed at Genus. The observer chose a sp. And left a sad comment when I pointed out - taxon specialists are cautious. It is a delicate balance between caution and go for it, what is the worst that can happen? If you are, actively identifying … my ‘best’ IDs are when my tentative and cautious broad IDs are supported at THAT taxon level by a specialist!

@catsear

Unknowns if the areas I look at (perhaps 70%) are in the plant kingdom, and often class Dicots (though that requires more skill than just Plants)

sob. Dicots in Africa 78K (so probably twice as many languishing in total)

Plants in Africa 36K - just as many again as - Honest Unknowns in Africa 38K (maybe 3? of the 30 on the first page are Not Plants)

It is shifting the Unknown - Plant - Dicot batches to useful IDs at family which helps. And takes a huge amount of knowledge which is often beyond my own plant-based focus.

@dlevitis

There is no community expectation of reciprocal identifying, and there should not be.

I don’t think, Jason means I ID one of his obs, and he IDs one of mine. More along the lines of - I pick spiders out of Unknowns for ‘you’ and someone else helps my ‘spider’ to a better ID. At the end of the day we have less Unknowns and more IDs added.

@Vireya

For the observations to go into the project that is keeping track of them they need to be IDed to some level, then annotated as Dead.

Does that Project have a journal post, calling on identifiers to help? That would be a good place to mentor identifiers who are happy to - fish - Dead. Or annotate - Dead. Not me!! That shouldn’t be resting on skilled and competent identifiers - they can then work thru the next level of informed IDs.

Thank you all for lots of useful feedback.

[DianaStuder]

If you look at your own stats and scroll down to IDs by taxon.

I helped 6.5K people with 25K IDs, and 86 people helped me with 177 IDs. 77% plants (a true reflection of iNatter’s focus ;~) followed by 10% insects. Will ignore the leftover bits and pieces in the last ‘unlucky’ 13% Those stats reflect different use of iNat - I obs the few that are worth my effort, and ID lots, learning steadily as I go. It is reciprocal - but not in a simple batting a ball back and forth way.

[gerrit_oehm]

Here something like mentoring can come in. Have a handful of species in mind that you want to learn to identify better in a specific area, and in the beginning of the process find someone that you can link/ tag so the person double-checks your identifications, ideally you communicate about the traits that you see, too and recognize the limits, when a species can not be identified by a photo. I tried it before with some people, but will try it out again - it takes additional time, but ideally will lead to more species knowledge and identifications in the future…

[orchidrose]

Hi Vireya,

I must confess, I have avoided looking at these observations and even going down to the beach as I have found the situation to be overwhelming depressing. But I like how you are doing it, so I will try and help. I too am not a marine person but I can at least get to fish and get them on the project.

[Vireya]

@grampianshiker

you say ‘ray-finned fish’ should cover it, so that’s good to know

Well some things aren’t that - there’s also sharks and rays and bivalves and sea stars and birds and… but most are ray-finned fish.

@orchidrose

have found the situation to be overwhelming depressing

I’m sure it must be! Just looking at the iNat observations is depressing enough, it must be dreadful in real life. I’ll be in SA next month so I may see some of it myself.

@DianaStuder

Does that Project have a journal post

Yes, but all the experts know about it already. The journal asks non-experts to just ID to the basic level and let the experts sort it out from there.

[grampianshiker]

@Vireya

Well some things aren’t that - there’s also sharks and rays and bivalves and sea stars and birds and… but most are ray-finned fish.

I know, and most of those things I have a little more idea what to do with, it’s mainly the fish that I was uncertain about. Though admittedly I’ve been ignoring them all since they became so overwhelming. Sorry - it’s not really fair to just dump them all on you.

Anyone have any hints for seaweeds? Or are they too wildly variable? (Sorry, kind of getting off track here…)