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:
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
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.