'Needs ID' pile, and identifications

[JaneBP]

@lynnharper

Here’s something interesting I just learned. Overall on iNaturalist, there are about 11% as many identifiers as observers (274,335 identifiers to 2,421,725 observers, currently). I live in the state of Massachusetts, USA, where there are about 33% as many identifiers as observers (18,973 identifiers to 56,355 observers).

Why the difference?

Is it just that Massachusetts has a relatively high concentration of iNat users compared to the world overall (assuming that’s true, by the way)? Have enough people been using iNat for longer in Massachusetts that they feel comfortable making IDs? In California, where iNat originated (I think), there are about 21% as many identifiers as observers (48,737 identifiers to 235,093 observers), quite a lower proportion of identifiers than in Massachusetts.

While there are certainly thousands of IDs still needed in Massachusetts, it seems to me that having about a third as many identifiers as observers is a reasonable goal to help keep up with the ever-increasing flood of new observations. We’ve talked in this forum (probably in this thread!) about how to grow the number of identifiers, but I’m curious about why Massachusetts has a relatively high proportion of identifiers. What are your thoughts?

ETA: More related factoids: In Taiwan, there are 37% as many identifiers as observers. In New York State, there are 29% as many IDers as observers. In New England, there are 25% as many IDers as observers. All pretty respectable ratios, so it’s not just Massachusetts.

Where are you finding these numbers?