As I see it, if the observer has left no instructions or indication, it is the call of the first identifier until such time as the original observer speaks up. If the first identifier is a plant person, then it is a plant observation. If the first identifier is one with a soft spot for our gastropods, it is a snail observation. (assuming it is a real plant, not plastic, and actually a snail, not a round rock, of course!)
Doesn’t seem polite to add an oposing idenfication, though a note in a comment indicating that the other organism is a rare and scientifically interesting species might result in a kingdom flip for the observation, always worth a try. And you could add tags or comments regarding any other organisms so that it might be findable in searches.
Do you look at the observer’s list of obervations made on the same day? It’s sometimes possible to figure out their intentions that way, since they may have already created duplicates for the other organisms, or made completely separate observations of them. Many identifiers don’t seem to check this, so it’s worth leaving a comment with links to the associated observations for these cases.
A quick way to get the list of observations for the same day (from the Identify dialog) is to click View, which will open the observation page in a new tab, and then click on the observation date at the top of that page.
This is helpful - thank you. I honestly am trying to quick ID to eliminate as many Unknowns as possible in a short amount of time, so I usually don’t do this much work. Which also leads back to the issue of identifiers having to do the observer’s work……anyway.
Thanks for the suggestion - that is something I will consider trying.
I’m enjoying pulling out books I have collected over the years and some I have never used. This weekend is v.d.Heever et al “ Tracker manual - A practical guide to animal tracking in southern Africa”. I probably picked this up in a book shop or airport somewhere when we did some safaris in southern Africa last year. Lots of tracks and scats so I have been pulling up those annotations. (And I’m really surprised by how many people don’t use those annotations!).
An excellent one for my area is Chris Jolly et al “ Field Guide to the reptiles of the Northern Territory”. I will occasionally dabble in the gecko IDs. Our poor native dtellas tend to get lumped into the dominant Asian House Gecko so it is nice to rescue them from that mis-ID where I can. (more views of feet and tails please!). Chris is also on iNat as well :)
Whyte and Anderson “A Field Guide to Spiders of Australia” is something I am starting to dabble in for the multiple spiders we have in the backyard. Who doesn’t like a jumping spider that waves its palps at you?
This is a great tip! I didn’t know how to do that and just tried it with an Unknown-marked observation that had moss and fungi visible in it. All the other observations by that user that day are of fungi so I will suggest an ID for the fungi. Thanks for posting that!
I understand - this is just something to occasionally consider when it’s hard to see any other way to improve things. It won’t work in all cases, but it works often enough to be worth making the effort. This is also a good way to find duplicates. I quite often find an original observation where the observer made their intentions much clearer, and it’s only the duplicate that remains unresolved. Leaving a comment with a link to the original can be very helpful in these cases. It’s a shame we don’t have a better way to eliminate them from the needs-id pool - but that’s another story…
I have been enjoying working on the unknowns. I have broad knowledge of nature and can often sort these into categories (plants, insects, etc) and sometimes lower. Also, I have no issue withdrawing something if incorrect.
What gets me is when people put the organism in the “notes” section instead of “what did you see?” when using the app. I don’t know if they’re guessing or actually know or just don’t know how to properly use the app. In these cases, I don’t wish to offend the observer (who actually knew) by adding a high classification. I suppose I could research what they put in the notes and see if it jives.
Sometimes I’ll identify the observation as whatever the observer wrote and add the note “ID by observer.” If all goes really well I’ll withdraw that ID after others chime in, but often I don’t notice.
Add the ID where you are comfortable. I add the observer’s placeholder as a comment - since subsequent identifiers don’t always see - placeholder / Notes / observation fields. Or even multiple pictures or comments if they work only from the first single thumbnail.
If their ID is a reasonable visual match and distribution is possible - go up the taxon levels till you are confident. Not sure if it is that grasshopper, but it is Orthoptera / Pterygota / Insecta.
More so to these tips is when it is a confusing unknown I will try to see in general what the observation history focus is of the OP. Someone with a lengthy observation history may focus on dicots and the high level ID is obvious. Someone with few observations has very little history to go by.