I 100% agree with this. Since iNat isn’t really supporting those ID resource collections at the moment, I wonder if it would be possible to create a few forum threads for this? Obviously a general “ID resources” forum would get too chaotic too quickly, but something more specific like “Skull and skeleton ID resources”, with IDers linking websites or guides they use, might be more useful? It would hopefully at least help those who are on the forum and are interested in improving their ID skills in areas they’re not currently confident IDing in. Obviously, a specific centre on the main iNat site would be ideal, but I suspect that if that ever happens it’ll take a very long time. Does anyone have any thoughts on that, or know if it’s been attempted before?
I agree with your proposal. The ID Center should have info, guides, suggestions, the process to help potential identifiers. One of the key dimensions to this center is the goal of mentoring as well. The goal is to share the identification experience with others - and to support more people and focus on sharing the opportunity to ID. I think of it as a intergenerational learning process. I added a journal post and pinned it to my Profile page that focuses on a state-by-state “look’ at observations for Mule Deer and subspecies (that is, being selective on how certain images provide angles and profiles }“markers”} for ID to species and subspecies). It is meant to be a learning process to let others know what to look for and to be aware of the nuances of the ID process in certain geographic areas where range of deer species can overlap - hybridization can occur - and where the habitat has changed to a more dynamic effect with migration patterns. It’s buried in other journal postings of mine - but try to highlight it on profile page. I also add in updated research papers to indicate advances in taxonomic knowledge. I am not here forever…so I think of this as adding to the educational value that will carry on - after I can no longer participate in the process.
I will be uploading from today - our burnt mountain has reopened and flowers are claiming the open space! I am very happy if the taxon specialist takes my obs to RG - that is worth a whole row of my IDs ;~)
That would go a long way indeed.
We have had things like that in the past, althouh they are sometimes embedded in other threads, reducing their finadbility and therefore usefulness. Here is a well-explained guide to Amanita sections, that lothlin wrote, as one reply within a longer thread: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/laymans-guide-to-fungus-orders-families/46181/22
As you can see from the thread title, the overall discussion was more broadly about fungal identification.
Ahhh, maybe one of these days I’ll put a book together
I think @DianaStuder updated the Studer ratio to 1.25 IDs for others, for every observation that you submit (as a reasonable mark for being a good iNat citizen).
I thought it should be followed by adding 1.25 annotations for every ID for others, since you can easily assess that when you view someone’s profile. Which would make it 1 to 1.25 to 1.25 (Observations to IDs to Annotations).
Yes, people think that as you master something, it will become easier, but it often becomes harder, because you raise the bar for yourself.
I think we will eventually have an ID Centre and/or an ID mentorship program etc. Maybe AI can gather journal posts scattered on the wind, and put them in helpful categories to make them easier to find. Re: mentorship, some experts love to teach, and some don’t. Teaching is a different skill from being a great individual contributor. iNat has solved a lot of problems. We’ll solve this one as well.
Please do!
Certainly true for some, but there are many very prolific identifiers who seem to have no interest in improving their skills.
I’ve bookmarked a custom URL to find observations identified by a certain group of accounts I spend a lot of time correcting. All of them have been identifying for multiple years, and together they’ve identified about 3.5 million observations. None of them ever respond to comments / questions, and mostly they just hit “agree” endlessly.
I’d MUCH prefer things remain unidentified than be mis-identified, personally.
I tend to agree. No one here is resposible for all of a taxon or a region, or at least they shouldn’t be, even though it may feel that way at times. And I think many of the people who like to add a lot of IDs are probably also completionists (including me) and it can bug us if things aren’t wrapped up. But I’d really encourage people to let that go (it’s hard!) and try and enjoy the identifying for what it is: data curation and helping others (and yourself) learn.
This could be grounds for suspension, see https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/community+guidelines
Add accurate content and take community feedback into account. Any account that adds content we believe decreases the accuracy of iNaturalist data may be suspended, particularly if that account behaves like a machine, e.g. adds a lot of content very quickly and does not respond to comments and messages.
I feel… conflicted about this. I appreciate everyone who takes their time to chime in regarding my (now more than a 1000, yay!) observations, and I always do my best to identify my own observations as far down the phylogenetic tree as I’m able to based on freely available internet data and life experience.
But when it comes to identifying someone else’s work, I find myself half of the time too scared, and other half – out of my depth to do anything. My familiarity is limited to biomes I’m accustomed to from my own adventures, so I’m stuck trying to identify things within my country; and even then mostly regarding my special interest – land arthropods, and maybe sometimes plants.
Within my country, what’s usually left to identify by the time I have the time – are 5 pixels of a tiny out of focus critter in a giant photo of someone’s whole room, aggressively manhandled fragile flying insects, and a hundred consecutive photos of white trails on leaves marked as “insects”.
Could I theoretically try harder? Do better? Looking back at it, yeah, definitely. I could. But to stare at pages upon pages of things I can do nothing about and struggling insects I can’t help, only for my whole feed to get swallowed the very next day by a hundred notifications for mediocre family IDs I manage to make?
It’s not a happy task and I’m not getting paid for it. So as long as I don’t demand identifications of my work from others, neither do I feel much of an obligation to make IDs myself.
2.5 IDs per obs was my guesstimate. If you upload your obs with your own ID, someone pisum? worked out it is 1.25 The ‘and a bit’ allows for obs that need discussion.
tiwane also likes to ID arthropods. Kindred spirits. 5 pixels is not happy - there would be a better way to use your ID skills. Arthropods in the Ukraine those look worth picking over for what interests you?
don’t forget to look at some insects, too! ;)
Boy, I hope I’m not one of those people! Please tell me if I am (this goes for any of you reading this, by the way). I make lots of IDs, but I feel like I’m not learning new species very fast at all.
Although I do read my comments, so maybe this isn’t me. (whew!)
I think a lot about how to get more identifiers engaged in iNat and you’re pointing out some of the same issues I struggle with. If someone is a beginning naturalist, of course they are going to feel both scared and like they don’t know enough when faced with the unfiltered mass of what’s uploaded every day in their region. Even as a good general naturalist (that’s me) but not a taxon expert, you’d be totally out of your depth when faced with, say, marine seaweeds (I haven’t a clue). You have my sympathy, seriously.
All I can suggest are these two things:
- Start with the species you observe the most. You don’t know what species those are? Substitute your user name for mine in this URL: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?user_id=lynnharper&view=species Apparently, I make lots of observations for Pitch Pine, Partridgeberry, and Sensitive Fern (I live in the northeastern US). Then look at the Research Grade observations for one of those species; here’s the URL for Research Grade Partridgeberry in New England: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=52339&quality_grade=research&taxon_id=83799 After a page of those, you’ll think to yourself: yep, I know that species. Feel free to add IDs to these observations if you agree with the ID; having several IDs on an observation is a good thing and it’s not as scary as making that first ID.
- Then, filter for Needs ID observations of that species in your region. Here’s the URL for Needs ID Partridgeberry in Canada (because I clean up Partridgeberry in New England too frequently): https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?verifiable=true&place_id=6712&taxon_id=83799 At the moment, there are a grand total of two Needs ID observations of Partridgeberry in all of Canada - but they need IDing!
Trying to make IDs without filtering for taxonomic groups means you will be looking at lots of organisms you don’t know - of course that’s frustrating.
I hope this helps. Feel free to message me (I’m lynnharper on iNat) if you have questions or have more assistance.
Somebody wrote once that trying to ID from “Identify” without filters is like trying to drink from a fire hose. True. But by limiting the stream to just organisms or places (or both) that I know something about, it’s manageable. Especially if I remember I’m not obliged to ID everything that shows up.
Even for species I regularly ID, there are often observations I can’t ID. Common Toadflax, for example. If it’s not in bloom, I’m not sure it’s Common Toadflax. I marked it Reviewed and move on.
That’s me with caterpillars. Annotators marking them as “larva” so I can filter them out are doing the Lord’s work; I don’t like wading through pages of little green larvae to find the adults I can actually help with.
Not likely! I’ve come across hundreds, maybe thousands, of your IDs, and only once a mis-ID (because the organism has the same common name as another organism, and it’s all too easy to mis-click on the wrong one) I’m always happy to see that you’ve lDed an observation before I get to it.
That’s an understatement! Hundreds of thousands… to genus or species…
I’ve learned some new species as an identifier, but mostly I’m just refining my understanding of taxa with which I’m already familiar. At my stage of life I’m just happy when I can retain the knowledge I already have, and I find that identifying is one of the best ways to keep stuff from leaking out of my brain.
I only wish I could choose what to delete from my brain to make room for better things, the way I can with my computer hard drive. (I’d start by deleting a whole lot of really bad songs and annoying advertising jingles from the last century…)
That is my limit - Unknowns to Lepidoptera and larva. Which anyone could do.
I would suggest trying a specific subset of your interests. Try filtering for just isopods, or millipedes, or lady beetles, etc. Trying to learn all the arthropods at once is overwhelming. Perhaps someone in your area has already tackled that group, in that case try a different one. If nobody has, then you will likely find a lot of pages of more-or-less identifiable observations. These kinds of groups often require a bit of research to be able to identify anything, so there’s a barrier that prevents most identifiers from getting to them, but if you’re willing to get over that barrier then you can be really helpful.