Thanks, MaLisa, for that link to the other thread.
I have seen that iNat is used by all sorts of people from people who know little to nothing about nature to people who have developed a certain amount of expertise on their own, to serious students, to people doing scientific research. It seems like it was created for all of those people (from reading the About page). So, one should expect a wide variety of identification attempts. I am not looking down my nose at anyone here just because I can ID a lot of birds. I am easily humbled when I try to ID something in other categories like fungi, insects and plants.
I seem to be comparing iNat a lot to eBird because I have been used to that website for a number of years. iNat is different because there aren’t any reviewers like eBird. The eBird reviewers try to make checklists valid. That is, they try to get to know the birders entering lists and try to determine if the entries are valid. This is especially true for rare species. It is an almost impossible job. Some bad data/inaccurate sightings are bound to get into the database.
Here at iNat there doesn’t seem to be any oversight. For example, I have seen scat droppings that have been labeled “gray fox” in Northeast Ohio with no explanation or comments. That’s an extremely rare and elusive species for this area. But, on the other hand, I am sure that researchers who try to use the data here at iNat understand that this can occur. I’ll bet that is why the Ohio Dragonfly Survey only accepts observations with photos. (At least, that was the case last year.) I would bet that researchers have learned to work with the data here and they can sift through it and get something that they can work with.