Seconding and thirding people here by saying there is nothing wrong with going with what seems to be the most likely guess, even if it’s as general as ‘plant’ or even ‘life’ in the case of those weird ‘is a gall caused by a mite, an insect, a viral or bacterial infection, or a fungus???’
Also: my take as an iNat veteran ‘non-specialist’ is that iNat is really, really great at developing your sense of what something is just by repetition and learning what to look for, as well as mistakes, which we all make. I’ve learned some valuable info just by the mistakes I’ve made, so don’t be afraid of making mistakes as you begin to feel more confident.
I think it’s useful to note that it’s not always the case that an “expert” (e.g. a longtime birder, an actual botanist with a degree, etc.) can necessarily identify something either.
Sometimes, a photo just isn’t good enough to identify something to the species level.
Sometimes, various species or even genera look really similar.
Sometimes, their “expert judgement” may be wrong.
It’s not by some stroke of magic that experts know more than you do. They’ve just gotten more experience using the same kinds of information you have access to, which is sometimes incomplete and may require some educated guesses. So, while you shouldn’t ID stuff willy-nilly “just because someone said so” or “just because the AI suggested it”, you also don’t need to be absolutely 1000% certain of your ID either. I think a reasonable guess is fine, particularly if you’ve done some looking-into-it on whatever you’re IDing it as. (e.g. I think it’s A, B, or maybe C, and iNat’s first suggestion is A, and I’ve seen A on a species list elsewhere nearby, so let’s ID this as A.)
If in doubt keep to the broader IDs. But if you see a selection that looks good, check it out. See if it’s in range, and whether it looks like the auto-suggestion could have made a mistake. Compare the taxon photos to your own. There’s nothing wrong venturing a possible ID out, there’s usually enough people identifying that they’ll correct mistakes, so it’s not a big deal if you go and choose the wrong one.
When I make an ID that I’m not completely sure of (as if I never make mistakes - HA!), I’ll add a comment like “I think?” or “Maybe?” in the hopes that it signals to the observer or other identifiers that I’m no expert, please feel free to disagree with me.
I do that too and saw numerous times how it doesn’t stop observers from agreeing, I start to feel like disabling this feature would be helpful with little downside.
The more I see how iNat works and the more I read about identifications here on the forum, the more I think there is no “perfect” way to make iNat work. I definitely think there needs to be better help offered to (forced upon?) new observers, but after that, even experienced observers and identifiers make mistakes, or can disagree legitimately on what species an observation represents.
I still think iNat is an excellent way to help people engage with nature, which is, after all, the stated goal of the staff. I still think that iNat data can be as useful to scientists as any other citizen-generated source of information, such as atlases, which is to say that atlases and iNat are not perfect sources of data. Do I get discouraged when I see how many Needs ID observations there are? Or when the observer of an Unknown observations objects to my ID-ing it as Fungi, without a finer ID? Or when I see new observers trying their best, but they don’t have the kind of specific guidance that would really help? (I’m thinking here of things like “many seedling plants are basically unidentifiable to species.”) Yes, of course I get discouraged. And then I come back to doing IDs anyway.
A good distinction! I will often advance a species in a comment if I am not really sure (i.e. have only done a cursory search). Otherwise, I will advance an ID with some references. Subtle difference, but different in confidence.
A good point. I rarely search for ‘Moths/Butterflies’, but get right down to the family level. Even then it is possible to encounter a really ‘out there’ misidentified observation. I recently encountered an observation that was identified as a Noctuid moth, but was actually a Caddisfly. I can see how that mistake was made, so I and others were not dismissive or mean, just offered a correction with a reason.