I’ve got a question regarding etiquette and what is actually useful (or not).
My identifying routine is as such: I’ll go to the “Identify” tab, select my region, and then select the taxa I’m more confident in (for me, birds and mammals) as well as “unknown.” I go through the unknowns periodically to begin the identification process in the hopes that it makes it easier for people who wish to do something similar as myself with what they are most knowledgeable in (i.e. a picture of a bald eagle is marked as unknown - if I didn’t know what type of bird it was, I’d mark it as the largest taxa that I was sure of, so maybe Aves or Accipitriformes).
I’ve been doing this thinking it was helpful, but I worry some people find it annoying. Should I continue to try to categorize unknowns (even if I’m like: oh it’s green with leaves, it’s a plant!) or should I just leave it untouched until someone who knows a better classification finds it?
I feel like this may be a silly question, and maybe one that’s already been covered. I also want to be clear that I’m not touching the ones that I don’t know what it is just to get rid of the “Unknown” classification - there’s a lot of observations out there that contain interesting blobs that I haven’t the slightest about!
I personally think its a great idea. If nothing else, it will likely get attention sooner. I suspect many experts won’t bother with ‘unknown’ observations so why not help them out?
IMHO - keep doing what you’re doing!
I do the same thing every so often and tend to notice a lot more notifications afterwards, so other identifiers are definitely finding a decent amount of the observations as a result of them being given those broad IDs.
meanwhile, when identifying specific taxa I’ll come across older observations that were presumably left unknown and have just recently been given a broad ID that makes them show up in my searches, and I’m always grateful for that because I wouldn’t have seen them otherwise.
some people do get annoyed or confused when vague IDs are added (I’ve had newer users make comments about how “well yeah, it’s obviously a bird/insect/whatever” occasionally) but leaving comments explaining why you added the ID and that it can help experts see the observation can help if that does happen.
all in all, I’d say keep doing what you’re doing if it’s something you enjoy. there are a lot of unknowns that are unlikely to ever be seen by people who can identify them unless someone adds those broader IDs
That is the proof. ID what you enjoy - find a slice that encourages you with subsequent notifications.
I admit I used to whine about Plant! or Dicot! But - if you can’t beat them, join them. Now I clear the daily slice for Cape Peninsula IDed only to Epifamily and see which I can nudge along a bit further. Plantae in Africa when you start your chosen slice, there may be be a (huge?) backlog (not so bad actually, I have Reviewed 389 obs) - but when it is eventually cleared - it is easy to keep up each day.
i do it often and i think it is useful. i do reverse as well, dropping bad photos identied as species back to “what is actually seen”, meaning observation of bird xy gets pushed to aves, if that is all that you can say looking at the five pixels.
Yes it’s absolutely valuable to categorise unknowns, even if just as plant/bird/reptile/insect… The people who get annoyed by this don’t understand the intricacies of how iNaturalist works, that’s all.
It’s understandable. Imagine you’re at your local natural reserve and you go up to one of the experts working there and say “excuse me, can you identify this photo I just took?” and they smile broadly and reply “yes, of course; that’s a plant!” — you would probably feel they were being sarcastic and deserved a slap in the face. That’s what some users think is happening when they submit their photo for ID on iNat and you come along and seem to say “what we have here, my friend, is a bird”.
They only don’t realise that broad categorisation helps to get the observation in front the eyes of the right specialists. Explaining that politely is generally all that’s needed.
Yes and there are 812 K waiting for ID … at Kingdom across the world (cannot resist a page of Unknowns, peeled 7 out of the latest 30), but without Africa since I have cleared my continent.
That is what bothers me. Almost a million obs.
For Aves only 184 K and probably substantially difficult, blurry, few pixels? Not a birder. Not my problem.
I work on that bunch every once in a while and I like to use the url modifier &order_by=updated_at&order=asc
I end up id’ing the observations that have been sitting around the longest.
Makes it feel more rewarding to resolve a 10yr old observation.
To head of annoying comments, write something like, “I put the general name “Lepidoptera” on your observations to help people who know them well to find your observation and give it a more precise name.”
Also, realize that some prolific observers like to post their photos now and put names on them later. They can get annoyed about our naming them. They should not, of course! But if I notice the observer has several thousand observations, I may leave that person’s unknowns alone. Or I may ID them.
I have found that identifying unknowns has become my most satisfying niche of iNat. The thing I know the best is Eastern North American birds, and they don’t lack for identifiers. I do have a pretty good grasp on the basics of many organisms that commonly appear in my area. So I feel it’s the way I can be the most helpful. It doesn’t happen every day, but I have uncovered a handful of observations languishing in unknown that once I pushed in the right direction they turned out to be something significant, like a rare plant or an insect with only a handful of observations. That’s the really rewarding part.
yeah. this. happened to me that i IDd unknown as fern, because that is all that i knew, and soon after it become a site of great discussion of fern experts and botanist which then went there to confirm that yes, that particular species has another, previously uknown, locality in my county.
When I filter through the observations of others, I try to narrow from Life/Unknown to a Fungi or Plant as much as time allows.
Perceived benefits:
Informs the member that they actually know more than they think.
Makes me feel like I rescued a precious observation from collecting digital dust.
Most likely helps the member achieve an ID sooner.
Hopefully encourages them to realize that everybody knows enough to progress along some of the ranks.
My primary interest is fungi, and the taxonomic ranks of biological classifications looks like:
Life->Domain->Kingdom->Phylum->Class->Order->Family->Genus->Species
The last two are often for the experts and even they make errors often, and happily admit it.
With little effort, most novices will experience the joy of progressing through the initial levels even when they did not realize they could.
Of course every single amateur mycologist will experience the humbling and humiliating lesson of learning that slime molds do not belong to the kingdom of Fungi, but Protista! (which is an incredibly valuable life lesson that is applicable to our journey as a person overall)
Thank you all for your input! I’m glad to hear that my experience has been a bit more common than I had initially expected, I have had some folks seeming frustrated at my less-discerning IDs. It’s good to know that at large it is still valuable to do this :)
Getting rid of the unknown classification is very helpful though. You don’t have to put a species-level ID, just saying “plants” or “mammals” is still better then nothing.
I certainly does not help against Plant Blindness that iNat has a single iconic taxon for
red or green (not brown tho) seaweed
moss (but not lichen)
and all the worts - liverwort, crystal wort
ferns
conifers
all monocot - grass and bulbs and orchids
all the dicots
trees, flowers or food crops? Bring it on.
About two thirds of iNat obs with nearly a million waiting for ‘better than nothing’. Cannot expect iNatters to tease all that green mess apart! Really?
If an observer adds a species-level ID and I can’t either agree or factually disagree based on what I see in the photo, I leave their ID alone. They observed it and maybe saw better than they can photograph. Even if the photo is really unidentifiable, they can keep it in their life list.
If they’re new, I suggest ways to get better photos of what they think they saw. Sometimes just reminding them to get closer to the organism will help them in the future. And I tell then a couple of things I wish I could see in the photo to confirm. Most people don’t know what features are important to photograph on pretty much anything.
Plus, I’ve seen some pretty awful photos of plants that I can confidently ID to species (Nandina domestica, for example) because the species has some unique gestalt I can see in their shot.
Yes - that’s what I was referring to in my post - if I know it’s a bird or a plant I will definitely identify it as such. In this quote I was meaning if I see a blob and don’t know if it’s from a mammal or an insect or a fungus (or maybe not life at all!) I won’t put anything :)