iNat’s top identifier algorhythm should not take into account people who just agreed with someone’s suggestion instead of the person who made the suggestion in the first place. This way, specialists who possees the knowledge on some specific taxa will always the obscured by some random dude who just agrees with anyone he thinks is right about the id, then the community won’t know who’s the specialist they are supposed to tag in the observations when looking for an id.
7 Likes
Technically this isn’t supposed to happen, though I know that it cannot be ruled out. People should apply the same standards to an agreeing ID as to an improving ID.
For the taxa I’m identifying I see no evidence for any of the top IDers not actually knowing how to ID the taxon nor for them just more or less blindly agreeing with the person who made the suggestion.
12 Likes
As a specialist, I have now identified enough observations and corrected enough observations that the iNat CV is pretty good at recognizing the comon species in my group. It seems unfair that after putting in all that work, I wouldn’t get credit for continuing to check and confirm IDs that observers are using the CV to select.
31 Likes
Bug Reports are for behavior that is not intended, so this isn’t a bug. I’ve moved it to General. For what it’s worth, the “Top Identifiers” list has been discussed multiple times on the forum.
In my opinion, every solution will have trade-offs, and I don’t see any other system as being significantly better than this one. For example, quite a few experts are busy in the field or doing other things and they often add agreeing IDs after the observation has already been identified correctly, so a system that emphasizes improving or leading IDs would be biased against them. A system like that would also probably encourage people to make guesses to be the first with the “correct” ID.
39 Likes
Goodness, this is quite an assumption.
My experience has been that for many taxa, there are multiple knowledgeable identifiers who review a taxon and one or another may show up first or second but both review all the Observations within that taxon.
To label the one arrives second “some random dude who just agrees” and decide their review is less worthwhile just seems wrong.
34 Likes
It’s flawed even so, as even peoples who do make new suggestions could just be making them up without having any real knowledge. I don’t think anyone should take iNaturalist top identifier list as some expert ranking. Most peoples at top of those ranking are not expert, as why they have enough time to spent on iNat.
I mean, if you’re a specialist in some taxa, especially in entomology, you would spent a big amount of your time in collections and under binocular not caring much about iNat pictures. I’m not saying there’s no specialist on iNat, and a big parts of the ones i know at least look at iNat when there’s reports of some interesting species, but most of them aren’t doing most of the id. There are exceptions. In my opinion most top identifiers are mid-level naturalist who have too much time during winter (as me lol). Maybe i’m biaised and it’s only the case for entomology.
Anyways if somebody is on iNat for some form of personnal gratification, i think that’s not the right place.
4 Likes
@sessilefielder’s iNaturalist extension for Chrome shows the information you’re looking for. See here:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/inaturalist-enhancement-suite-chrome-extension-v0-7-0-identifier-stats/44002
The extension can be found here:
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/inaturalist-enhancement-s/hdnjehcihcpjphgbkagjobenejgldnah
8 Likes
If you come across examples of iNat users who appear to be agreeing with IDs in a way that doesn’t reflect their best judgment about the actual identity of an observation, you should flag the identification for review by a curator. For example, students in badly organized class projects sometimes agree to large numbers of incorrect CV IDs added by their class mates.
If you’re just concerned that some users are agreeing to large numbers of mostly reliable IDs to bump up their position as a “top identifier” for a taxon, that may be kinda pointless, but it’s not prohibited. I’m always surprised that people would bother to do this as the “reward” for being a top identifier is basically non-existent.
One caution: iNat identifiers work in a lot of different ways, and I have noticed that can result in people assuming that an identifier is just trying to rack up numbers when in fact they’re methodically confirming IDs for every observation of a particular taxon group.
24 Likes
I understand you point of view and I agree, but I’m not seeking for personal gratification I just think that if this is not going to change at all, then the top identifier shouldn’t even exist in the first place, this is just unnecessary ranking.
Because, the way it is now, it isn’t helping the community either.
Yes, that wasn’t the best way to put it, but I’ve seen it happen so many times it’s tiring.
1 Like
If you’re a specialist in some taxa that only spends time in a collection and under binocular not caring much about iNat pictures, then chances are that all the knowledge you’re adquired in that taxa will not be avaiable anywhere besides the papers you published that a few experts in the same area know about and won’t be known by the rest of society.
1 Like
What do you propose as an improvement?
2 Likes
What I’m saying is that, even unnintencionally, people can rack up the top identifier status of multiple taxa, just by tagging an expert in their posts to get the identification and then confirming it afterwards. In that sense, it seems wrong that the one who identified the taxon correctly will not get any recognition.
It certainly helps me. For context, I am an untrained general observer in a less studied area (east of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec).
So I use the top identifiers as a starting point when I post an Observation that I think might be identifiable to some degree but has langushed a bit after I posted it.
Usually I go into the top five or so profiles and read, I also look to see if the profiles are recently active, and I also look to see if the identifications made are general or specific. Then I tag the one I think is likely to be the most apt.
Now, four years in, I generally have an idea of who I might tag for almost everything but people leave or become busy or their interests change, so I try to double-check, even if I am 99% sure that for, say, a new-to-me bee I am likely to end up tagging Jorge Merida and/or John Ascher.
I still check the top Identifier list every time though! Because maybe there is a local student coming up who is showing fierce interest. Or someone specifically going after Xylocopa. Or Megachile. Or x-y-z.
So I like the lists, as a research tool. Just my two cents from this vantage point.
28 Likes
I propose that the top identifier should be defined by a given numbers of agreements to their ids (probably the correct id) instead of anyone who’s agreeing or suggesting.
I also don’t think that’s an absolute solution, but I think that’s a starting point.
iNat is 24/7 across the world. People work and have RL commitments. Who get to an obs ‘first’ is the luck of the draw. If you are interested in a particular taxon, you will quickly learn who knows the taxon. Who to ask for help with an ID. Whose ID to trust.
The top identifier list is a good place to start. But just as you use your judgement to decide an ID, so too you decide who is the right person to ask for this. And then your chosen identifier, passes it on to an even more specific specialist (who you file away for next time)
The Enhancement extension is definitely useful. Top of my notifications now
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/35876780
Physalia Diana 16 wyattp11 152 for sp - and a profile which says - Senior Aquarist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium.
Who is the top identifier? No contest.
But I would turn to clinton who is also Southern hemisphere and - Curator of Marine Biology at Auckland Museum, Auckland, New Zealand. Especially since he leaves helpful comments and links.
12 Likes
It’s irrelevant whether someone agrees to a specialist’s ID. Compare these two cases with only two or three ID suggestions:
Observer selects correct CV suggestion for species ID.
Specialist agrees.
Observer proposes family or genus ID (correct or incorrect).
Specialist proposes correct species ID.
Observer agrees.
And as already mentioned, a specialist could confirm the identifications of all observations of their taxon of interest, without subsequent agreeing IDs.
7 Likes
Puplished papers are way more accessible than almost any form of knowledge spreading that an expert would be able to create, at least for naturalism related ones as they tend to be open access.
that a few experts in the same area know about and won’t be known by the rest of society.
That mostly what is happening with almost every insect taxa right ? Few are interested in them. If you want any info anyone can send them a mail a get an answer, i do it regularly.
iNaturalist is an incredible project that I’m really passionate about, but it’s not exactly the central hub where everything converges in the naturalist world .Most informations won’t be accessible there. I don’t see your point.
I’m not trying to sound confrontational but i just think iNat is not expert oriented. It’s a place for everybody to share pictures of biodiversity. One could correct me if I’m wrong.
5 Likes