Incorrect Corrections

In addition to being able to change the default taxon photo(s), you can also go any observation you believe is wrongly-identified and add what you believe is the correct ID. That’s how this platform works - it is constantly open to correction and improvement. That errors will occur is difficult to escape in any area of natural history, but here, at least they can be discussed and fixed!

8 Likes

On the other hand, we all have a bad day from time to time. I’m not always the best at letting things pass but it’s usually the best policy.

6 Likes

I agree, keep it civil whenever possible. But when someone comes in with both barrels blazing, I can forgive another for being less than civil in response.

4 Likes

It’s always possible, even if the social media world might leave a body with the impression that incivility is obligatory. More to the point, it’s also almost always more productive, if solving problems and resolving conflict is the objective. I can be a grouch when I’m stressed or tired but I have arrived at a point in life where I don’t have any illusions about it being a good thing.

I have two social media accounts, LinkedIn because it’s more or less a professional requirement and this place because it’s a great idea and much more civil than the rest of them. LinkedIn has become increasingly toxic of late so I largely ignore it. Hopefully this place can hold onto a more grown-up standard of discourse.

Everybody has baggage of some sort. None of us knows what load another is carrying. Be kind to rude people.

11 Likes

Welcome to iNaturalist @daphne1. The culture of iNat intentionally disregards credentials in favor of community consensus. It is a democratic idea, that the community will correct errors over time. I (and most experienced users) would attest it works. Users with credentials and experience in a field can benefit the community, not by weighing their IDs over lay users, but by maximizing their engagement. Identify often. Explain corrections when you disagree, so that everyone can learn from the experience. Make observations with good pictures of all of the relevant diagnostic features. This builds up the whole community.

iNat isn’t a platform where the admins make corrections when there are disagreements with more experienced users. I’d encourage you to try not to feel insulted when your identification is not supported, and trust the system will make it right. Some of the best interactions here are robust disagreements, where everyone can learn from the discussion.

Remember that iNat isn’t primarily about data purity, but helping users engage with nature.

16 Likes

Just trying to sort through the confusion here. @daphne1 is not her same user name on iNaturalist - someone else already has that user name. @daphne1 has an observation from 2 years ago that is marked as maverick because of likely choosing a misspelled homonym on the drop down menu - easy enough, I’ve seen plenty of very knowledgeable users let the keystrokes get ahead of them. I think she is referring to a recent observation where her suggested ID is maverick and overall is marked as Casual for some reason - maybe because she has opted out of community ID?

5 Likes

Oh, thanks. My bad-- I didn’t notice the recent casual lizard and just assumed it was the 2 year old sagebrush observation, though it seemed odd that’d trigger such a bellicose response after so long!

And if I may say so, the lizard observation looks like yet another example of why allowing opt-out of community ID in a system that doesn’t also allow for expert validation is a terrible idea. Either believe in democracy (community crowdsourcing), or recognize that some users come with extra powers (in this case authors). We’ve got the worst of both worlds in the hybrid system that’s implemented now.

5 Likes

Thank you very much. That encourages me to keep going. Often, however, a safe determination is unfortunately not possible only after a photograph.

3 Likes

Gradually, I understand the philosophy behind iNaturalist. Thank you very much.

4 Likes

No I did see the observation in question, the username is slightly different but the profile picture is the same, it is a two year old observation.

3 Likes

No that was the one, there were only a few observations from two years ago (including the lizard), and that was the only maverick ID.

2 Likes

Sorry to disagree but it is not obvious.

She has a casual observation from Sep 6, 2020 (new lizard) and an observation from Apr 27, 2018 that both have her suggestion as Maverick because her suggested ID taxon is not a descendant or ancestor of the community taxon.

In Explore Filter , with the correct username (Person) and not daphne1, if you deselect Verifiable under the Show section so that nothing in that section is selected, Casual observations will now show as well as Verifiable observations.

It is the Sep 6, 2020 observation that, I believe, has driven her chief complaint.

3 Likes

Whether it’s the lizard record or the sagebrush record, both of her IDs are Maverick for good reason. They’re simply not correct.

5 Likes

“Say, friend, I don’t suppose I could convince you to go with an Acanthus, instead? How about a nice justicia brandegeeana (shrimp plant) or pachystachys lutea (golden shrimp plant) instead of a sagebrush? Wadda ya say?”

7 Likes

i hope this isn’t inappropriate to say, but i think this thread is a good example for why expert credentials should not be given special weight for identifications like some people suggest

10 Likes

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but does anyone know why it would be considered non-verifiable? It has a date, it has a time, it has media; aren’t those the things needed to make an observation verifiable?
Yes, I see the user opted out of community ID, but if community ID had agreed with the observer, the observation could have gone to RG even with opt-out and RG implies verifiable…so what makes it not “verifiable” where you must adjust the filters?

“Verifiable” as a name and its use in the filters to show Casual grade observations in addition to Needs ID/Research is a bit of misnomer. Captive/cultivated observations also aren’t considered “verifiable” when, well of course they are verifiable. Here’s the longer definition: https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/help#quality

For tangential discussions, you can use the “reply as a linked topic” option:

image

5 Likes

Thanks for the info on linking! I’ve seen topics split but never tried it.

Re: the filter… But the user’s other 2 casual observations are shown under their observations without having to deselect verifiable. Why does it filter out some casuals but not all?

I’ll send you a direct message.

1 Like

There are many skilled identifiers on iNat for herps for your region, I would trust the community ID.
Everyone makes mistakes, even “experts”. The typo in the plant observation is a good example.

2 Likes