'Needs ID' pile, and identifications

Homonyms haunt me and I check Kingdom Disagreement (for Africa) every day. Mostly easy to help it back in the right direction.

3 Likes

I have an identify filter question that maybe some of you who know more about URL hacks can help me with. Sorry if this has been asked before but I searched and haven’t found an answer yet.

I know I can target multiple places at once by adding them all to the identify URL (e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?place_id=95113,72645,9012,95209 to cover all the National Parks along the Appalachians). But is there also a way to exclude a particular place, or combine existing overlapping places to narrow it down to “Place A but only the parts overlapping with B, not C”?

The particular use case I have in mind is making an identify link for the Blue Ridge Parkway (id=95113), but only the section that runs through NC (id=30), not VA (id=7), or vice versa. Trying something like https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?place_id=95113&without_place_id=7 doesn’t seem to work.

Once I was identifying a hoverfly. It was of the genus Eupeodes, though I couldn’t go further. I typed ‘Eupeodes’ and clicked ‘Eupeodes’… (or so I thought…), then after a brief interlude of the spinning circle, my ID popped up: ‘Piciformes: Woodpeckers and Allies’.

I have no idea.

Weird stuff happens. I did correct it though :)

5 Likes

Sadly the opposite of place_id= is not without_place_id= but instead &not_in_place=. When staff wrote these terms they must not have considered consistency. I was just complaining about this last week on the second search URLs tutorial thread.

2 Likes

One particularly common way misclicks may occur is that when someone types in the ID box the order of ID results (which shows at the top) sometimes change, and there may be a slight delay before they settle on a final order. So if someone clicks the first result too fast they may be clicking the taxon it’s still changing to. This could be improved by identifiers slowing down their pace, and possibly by the website further improving delay/load/speed-related issues.

That said, I agree misclicks should be uncommon and identifiers with many IDs should seek to avoid them. Occasionally when someone’s notified of making a misID there’s some contextual evidence indicating it was due to a misclick (e.g. same genus name in another order). But in many other cases there’s no way to know/remember, and I’ve seen some users simply assume and call many of their misIDs “misclicks,” and sometimes even delete their IDs after doing so. This assumption if used too often probably misinterprets some ordinary misIDs. It would seem better for users to just try to minimize misclicks (including avoiding their causes) in the same way we try to we avoid misIDs, and not to delete them since doing that can rationalize/perpetuate them.

4 Likes

A like by Diana reminded me that I had not updated the State of matter Life clean up wiki in quite a while (fortunately, life happens :slightly_smiling_face:) From the table at the end of the first post (the wiki) March 10, 2021 total was 22,265 while April 10, 2022 is 37,186. One community behaviour change (possibly just because I did not notice before) is that users are actually choosing to identify things as Life for various reasons (which is kind of counter to my State of matter Life limbo post where I felt things fall off the radar for IDing for most users and takes some effort to resuscitate).

1 Like

It amazes me how often bits of plant debris get mistaken for insects. The strangest thing I saw today in State of Matter Life was a bit of woody debris floating in duckweed – the observer thought it was a newt. Admittedly, one dead duckweed leaf was stuck to it in such a way that it could look like a closed eye, but still…

3 Likes

I usually isolate a group of insects I’m familiar with and am in a mood to identify. Even after an hour, it feels like I’ve done a lot, but realize I have barely scratched the surface. And even then, need someone to also confirm the identification to make it RG.

3 Likes

It needs to be said, since I have noticed that not everyone knows: if someone observed pictures of many species as one observation, you don’t automatically push it back to State of Matter life. that’s only if there are organisms from more than one kingdom. To illustrate:

Five different species, of which three are Dicots and two are Monocots: you ID as Flowering Plants.

Eleven different species, of which ten are Flowering Plants and one is a chicken: okay, that you ID as State of Matter Life.

I am seeing too many multispecies observations in which all of the species present are Plants, Flowering Plants, or even Dicots, yet someone thought they had to push it to State of Matter life.

8 Likes

I leave a comment and no ID.
If people start adding a broad (or outright wrong) ID … I unfollow.

2 Likes

Might be so that @lotteryd will see it and add the second ID needed for casual to happen. Otherwise it may sit awhile. I’m not saying I do it that way, but it is faster.

1 Like

Right, I don’t blame people for slapping a Life on there rather than go through a bunch of pics just to check for being in same Kingdom or not. I figure any extra hands who can help put those to Casual are the kind of people who check Life. We can always come back through Life Casual later to bump them around better, if we want.

3 Likes

I found one the other day for bluets (the flowers) which had been marked as bluets (damselflies). It was clearly a mistake It almost did the same to me as I moved it to the correct one! The other person quickly corrected theirs, it probably popped up in their notifications I’d guess.

I’m not sure if it is linked to the new update…but it seems to pop up a LOT more slowly lately as you start typing in, and then it tends to flip around quick as you click. I’m getting a lot of near misses myself these last few days.

8 Likes

I have made just about every possible error in identification and mis-clicking. Unfortunately, I seem to be making more lately. I have told myself, “Don’t ID when you’re tired,” and “Slow down,” good rules that I routinely ignore. Unfortunately, I’m likely to make more of these errors as I get older. I hope they continue to be a small percentage of my identifications, but if not, let me know.

13 Likes

I find the real danger of misIDs for me is when I review photos on iNat on my cellphone. I often need the better resolution and bigger image of a computer screen. Also it’s easier to “mis-click” on a phone which I do regularly anyways.

4 Likes

Question: if the observer does come back and separate them, does that move them out of casual? Because if not, I cannot in good faith deliberately move them into casual.

1 Like

It would not move out of casual unless the observer knows to counter-act the “as good as it can be” checkbox.

4 Likes

At the very least, separating the photos will put all but the original one back into “needs ID,” I think.

2 Likes

Too bad there isn’t notification for separating photos. It is hard to follow up. But if they are left at the common denominator, such as Dicot, someone can make a species ID without looking at remaining images and someone else can second that. Then you have images not representing the first species possibly included in exported image banks which starts to confuse things.

7 Likes

I just tried your link to see my numbers and came up with surprising numbers as both leading and improving were much higher than I expected. I certainly was not expecting a near 50/50 split between supporting and improving/leading.
I remember the days when I first started on iNat when my observations would go without anyone providing any ID at all, not even a supporting one. It felt pretty lousy and I stopped using iNat for quite a few years. Now that I’m doing some identifying, I have no problem providing supporting IDs, especially if it encourages newcomers to not give up hope.

5 Likes