This could easily be gamed too though, to be honest. Like many others, I often use the CV as a quick “auto-complete” to fill in a species I know the name of, to make the process faster, so the CV icon doesn’t mean anything about whether the identifier does or doesn’t “know” what the ID is. But I’ve found that sometimes people disregard IDs with the CV icon. So for some taxa, I simply click on the CV’s correct ID after it’s been entered in the ID field, which brings up the taxon in the drop-down menu again, and then click the ID a second time in the drop-down menu. This makes the ID show up without the CV icon, as it was last clicked on from a dropdown based on the text in the field, not based on the CV Suggestions dropdown. It takes two extra clicks in quick succession, and the CV-suggested species is entered without any indication that it came from the CV. Again, I only do this for taxa where I’ve had trouble with people questioning my IDs based on my use of the CV to quickly fill in an ID that I already knew. But this could very easily be used by these supposed “bad faith leaderboard climbers” to continue to get “credit” for CV IDs, if that really means so much to them.
One suggestion I would recommend to users intending to tag identifiers for a taxon is to visit two or three observations of the taxon that are accompanied by comments and see which IDers have contributed to useful discussions or provided valid references to back their IDs or help differentiate the taxon from other similar ones.
It usually is the case that these are knowledgeable IDers, compared with those who just add an agreeing ID and go away. The converse isn’t necessarily true; there are some exceptionally knowledgeable IDers who prefer not to engage in discussions but still ID with high accuracy. But in general, it is a good rule of thumb.
I can actually throw in some interesting context here: I am the 2nd highest identifier of Bombus on the platform and have close to 300K ID’s. About 75% of my ID’s are agreeing with the previous ID. I spent many hours going through all of the top three recorded species for North America, mostly agreeing, but occasionally kicking out previous mis-ID’s. Am I just some random guy who got to the top by agree-botting? Or do I know a lot about Bombus and my agreement is possibly worth a little more?
Recently, a couple of others have been re-combing North American Bombus, they found things that I missed. Every new sweep through the dataset finds things that the previous identifiers missed.
Also important to remember, every dataset on here is different: for global Bombus, those on the leaderboard are quite good, in fact the top 30 names are all pretty good for their areas. I’m sure that isn’t the case for every dataset.
There are a lot of taxon specialists on here, and many agree quite a bit, because they are specialists and are just checking the taxa that they specialize in. It may be worth examining the leader board for your taxa of interest and see whose profile has some indication of specialty.
Also, for some rarely observed taxa, it doesn’t take much time to “spend the most time” on them.
There are so many taxons that anyone can be a top identifier of something. Just find something obscure enough. I would not really care about these leaderboards as there are really countless of them.
I never knew this. I often post observations where I have a DNA barcode so I’m sure of the name. Didn’t realize if I click on the CV ID for convenience that the system flags that it as such. From now on I’ll make sure I clear that flag.
I wouldn’t worry too much about this - so many people use the suggestions as an autocomplete time saver, the little CV badge is largely meaningless in determining whether the identifier was actually using only the CV suggestion or their own knowledge.
Thank you so much for this huge effort to improve IDs!
If we take a step back, the issue here isn’t the algorithm or the top 10 ranking at all - the real issue is frustration with individuals who “game” the rankings to appear in the top 10, by agreeing to massive numbers of observations without genuine expertise or review. The issue is those people’s misuse, or the fact that this “gaming” is possible.
It is annoying when someone joined last night and is the #1 identifier of sasquatches this morning. They did not genuinely review 10,000 observations in 6 hours. (Insert real taxon and actual numbers here, we’ve all seen it.)
I completely understand where that frustration comes from, but it isn’t worth clinging to. I could name some names - it would be a small list. But it doesn’t really matter - this is really a small number of people. (Also I’m pretty sure that name drop would violate some kind of guideline.) Eventually most of them will get bored and go away. Or, smarten up and learn something, and then become a legitimate contributor. (It has happened at least once.)
I have a lot of (sincere) IDs of reptiles, a lot of them to subspecies. Occasionally, someone new joins, typically a young person very enthusiastic about a particular species, and they will go add several hundred species-level agreement IDs to some observations. They aren’t really adding value, but they aren’t hurting anything either, other than my brain when I suddenly have several hundred notifications. I just mute that person.
There’s much value in (genuine) IDs adding third and fourth and fifth confirmations, reviewing and refining the accuracy, this should continue to “count”. Many people here have made this point very well, and a few gamers shouldn’t ruin it. I’d even go further and say I’d prefer “three for RG”, setting a higher bar for review. (Yeah I know - it’s a different topic, beaten to death already - no need to relitigate it.)
I would like to see a little more emphasis on top observers as well, as (depending on what species we’re talking about) these are generally people who know how to find a thing and understand it in the field, which matters. You also can’t get to the top of that list overnight from mom’s basement.
I’m a compulsive IDer (it’s a stress release, so I thank you for that), and I don’t think I approached being the top IDer of any species even when I was most engaged. I didn’t check, because I can’t imagine putting in the amount of effort it would take to illegitimately claim the dubious honor of having your name on the top IDer list in iNat in this manner. I see this as a either solution in search of a problem or an inappropriate (in my view) need to feel better than the many dedicated iNaturalists who don’t have the privilege of working in a field they love and can gain recognition for.
WRT the top IDers, most experts won’t respond if you tag them for help. I’ve stopped doing so. Frequent and constant engagement is an important key to the success of iNat as well. If an observation is posted on iNat and ignored indefinitely, it’s demotivating and feels like a waste of energy. There are entire taxa I don’t post observations in anymore because there’s no response. Expertise matters. So do good manners, encouragement, engagement, frequent participation and saying thank you by giving someone a badge.
I know most about birds. You do not need to be an erudite scholar to ID most common birds. Here’s to the beginning birder who goes through and IDs every unidentified Northern Cardinal and Blue Jay because that’s their only way to give back. I regularly see them do this. It makes me so proud of them. They may hit the wrong key, but they’re unlikely to fake data in this way. They’re going through and gaming how they can help and still provide good data.
I’m a very good birder, and I put in a lot of effort on iNat. If you’re going to require a high level of expertise to throw out non-monetary, symbolic rewards for good work, IMO you’re de-democratizing the process and being ungrateful and elitist.
I am constantly seeing posts like this that seek to hold out privilege and respect for experts so they can feel superior to beginners. Of course I have respect for expertise, but I have a great deal of respect for those of us who work hard at other jobs and throw tons of effort in our free time at documenting trends (declines) in nature. As our chances dim of saving habitats and species, I want a bigger boat for nature, not an exclusive club.
I apologize. I feel like I’m addressing the different comment / same issue over and over again. I should stay off this forum. The pie is big enough, people. The data is robust. It’s ok. Let us plebe naturalist have our crumbs. We’re not trying to steal your glory. We’re trying to help as everything disappears.
I don’t think you should stay off this forum at all! My own tone would have been a bit different, but your rant had some great lines! 
I don’t consider myself an “expert” in much of anything (except maybe caring for a house full of cats), but my name does appear near the top of several identifier lists because of how much de-stressing I do on iNat. And I can add to this that the vast majority of “tags” that I get from observers who undoubtedly found me at the top of some identifier list are asking me to identify something I have absolutely no clue about. I specifically identify adult Nearctic Lepidoptera, and most of the tags I receive are for Lepidoptera from other parts of the world (cool to look at, by I haven’t the slightest clue what they are), or larvae (again, fun to look at, but the Venn diagram of identifiers of caterpillars and adult moths has virtually zero overlap). I used to comment and explain this when I was tagged, but it’s gotten so tiresome I just ignore it now.
I usually have a good response rate if I tag someone who I know offline to be an expert in a particular taxon, but just looking at the leaderboard for a family/genus and tagging the global top IDer will almost certainly get no response, because they’re probably at the top of that list due to an interest in some specific niche group within that family/genus, and not due to being a general expert in identification of the group across the globe.
Case in point, here I am at the top of the global Tineid identifier list: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?subview=map&taxon_id=124262&view=identifiers
But I know literally nothing about 99.9% of Tineids, I just really like one small genus, Acrolophus, and only know the species in the eastern USA and Canada. That’s where virtually all those IDs come from: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=1&subview=map&taxon_id=118929&view=identifiers But guess how many tags I get asking for help on random Asian Tineids… I think the “tag the top identifiers in the group” strategy of receiving ID help is hopelessly flawed because of how these leaderboards work. So in conclusion, I agree that the “top identifier” spot should definitely not be held up as a sign of expertise. Because any heuristic that places me as the top world expert in Tineid moths is absolutely flawed beyond belief.
It all depends what you want to do with the lists.
I will upload a pile of observations and for birds I know what most are and will usually label down to species level. If it is a bit unclear I will ID to a level or two above and see what others have to say. But if I’m tired it is faster to type Aves and I will ID properly later.
I recently went on a gecko kick. Just the geckos in my area eg Asian House gecko vs dtellas vs other geckos. I ended up going through the AHG list to see if there were any obvious errors. It will have put my AHG ID status a lot higher. All it tells you is that I can look for claws on feet and spines on tails but in my area that allows you to ID quite a few geckos.
There are some IDers I definitely trust so I will confirm their ID after I have a quick look especially if they have commented on what pushes them towards that ID.
I like the lists for trying to find a more expert person when I am stuck. I don’t go for #1 automatically. I check out their profile, look at what they tend to ID and look at their observations to see if that taxon predominates. Even better if they have observations over a period of time in my area.
Have you written that on your profile?
Interested in …
Can’t do …
Not everyone will click thru, but at least you can catch the ones who care.
re: profiles, specifically profiles that are “empty” because they have not been filled out at all
(not saying Paul Dennehy’s is or is not, have not looked, but I just thought of this)
When I go to a person’s profile page and am met by the absence of any welcoming info like, “I am interested in XYZs of North America,” or a list of favorite taxa or even a short bio, I tend to avoid tagging that person. unless I can discern that they are actively identifying the very thing I am hoping to have identified. (Usually this is a student.)
However I have noticed that sometimes on one of my Observations, the experts I do know will tag a person who has an empty profile (and sometimes not a high number of identifications), and I think this means they must know of the empty profile person professionally. Then the empty profile person will offer a brilliantly specific identification and sometimes carry on a mini conversation with the expert who tagged them that is incredible, specifying the why.
So the empty profiles to me are amazing. It feels like 99% of them are likely disinterested but 1% are superheroes just waiting for the bat signal. (But I also think they are very busy and need/want to stay hidden.)
I greatly respect these people.
In my imagination, these empty profiles are older scientists who are really passionate about their fields and favourite taxa, but just don’t want to deal with any of the online and internet stuff.
I went on an excursion with an older professor and he could look through the stereomicroscope and almost instantly tell you what worm (especially Nemertea and Polychaeta) you had there. Now, he didn’t have any sort of iNat profile, but he did know some of the polychaete experts on here personally. I have no doubt that if he ware on iNat, he’d be one of those empty-profile-experts. :D
Please don’t. Even the best experts make mistakes. If you can independently confirm why they are correct (i.e., you can see the relevant distinguishing feature(s) and are able to exclude other possibilities based on your knowledge or research) that is fine, but for a lot of taxa “it looks plausible” isn’t sufficient, because there may well be other species that look quite similar to the unexperienced eye.
I never know what to do as an identifier in these situations…
On one hand, I did make my ID because I was confident about it with the information available to me, on the other hand, I do not want an observation to reach RG unless someone else can independently confirm it.
I feel like I should just withdraw it, but that kinda makes me feel like I’ve just wasted my time. I don’t really care about the leaderboards or anything, but making IDs just to withdraw them a few days later feels like my efforts would have been better spent doing something else.
Agreed, I know a few of these “empty profile experts” and tag them occasionally. I recall one instance where someone tagged me because they disagreed with an “empty profile’s” ID of a moth and wanted my opinion… little did they realize that the “empty profile” guy was the first author on the paper that described the species in question. He doesn’t go around touting his own expertise, but knowing him personally, I can vouch that he knows certain taxa of moths better than anyone else on the planet. But you won’t see him on the “leaderboards”, since he only has the time to swoop in and ID particularly difficult or interesting observations.
but then it is a pity that info is not on his profile?