No, I’m Russian, what do you mean? I don’t search English sources first, and Russian Wiki says nothing about sap, only how it was used for centuries as a vegetable.
1 Like
Your sarcasm doesn’t translate well
1 Like
I hear you. Or for that matter, distant shots of trees, where the mass of leaves does not allow anything of the leaf form to be seen. Frankly, it annoys me, for the reasons #3 and #4 that @pfau_tarleton discussed.
Then you are putting more thought into it than some observers do, who seem to think that we are miracle-workers.
As long as we keep in mind that the reverse is also true – you can post whatever quality picture you want, but the IDer is under no obligation to do anything.
At the end of the day, it is inescapable that some taxa can only be identified with details that do not show up well in blurry photos. In my butterfly IDs, I often comment about a line on the wing, or the presence of a small spot, which makes the difference between my IDing it to species or just to family. If that is classist or ableist, I don’t know what else to tell you.
5 Likes
It’s not quite so simple as that. Where you are geographically makes an enormous difference in your ID rate. I make a point of uploading high quality, well edited images as I like the photography side of things, but I’m working in SE Asia, so it’s rare I get any IDs at all on the observations.
It also depends a lot on what it is you’re taking photos of. Sometimes I’ll post a really bad shot of a bird that was flying high above me and, despite both being in an area where IDs are rare to get and having posted a poor quality image that will often get an ID pretty quickly. Even excellent photos of arthropods however…
1 Like
I think time parameter adds to it, if your photos contain needed info they will be ided, sooner or later, sometimes later means years. With arthropods main problem is excellent photos can have zero value to id, but most of bad photos won’t be ided either.
The years later aspect is pretty normal here. I don’t really mind as long as there is eventually an ID, although since we use iNat to help add to the biodiversity index here more frequent IDs with a faster turn around time would be useful.
With the arthropods most of them are of ones that should be relatively easy to ID from photos (lots of butterflies, moths, spiders, etc) and it’s in an area where a lot of the biodiversity information is lacking, but there simply aren’t a lot of experts on this region on iNat, and often the ones that are on iNat are heavily focused on their specific micro-region.
2 Likes
Sounds like you guys have lots of dangerous plants over there!
1 Like
Well shared! Whatever user’s personal goals are, it should align with goal of site - quality observations. Don’t you think? There’s a reason expert naturalist on a pro bono basis are on here.
Right! And then, it should get better with time :)
Closed at request of the topic creator