'Needs ID' pile, and identifications

[sgene]

@lynnharper

Some day soon, I’ll start going through Unknowns with multiple photos where the photos are of different species, and I’ll leave a comment asking the observer to split the photos into different observations (with links to helpful tips on doing that). I’ll give those observers at least a month to respond; if they don’t, I’ll give the observations the lowest ID that applies to all of the photos and mark the DQA to say the ID can’t be improved.

I don’t think you need to wait a month, if you leave a comment that you have marked the DQA and that they should be sure to leave a comment saying that they have separated the photos after they have done so.

[arboretum_amy]

@lynnharper

I’ll start going through Unknowns with multiple photos where the photos are of different species, and I’ll leave a comment asking the observer to split the photos into different observations (with links to helpful tips on doing that). I’ll give those observers at least a month to respond; if they don’t, I’ll give the observations the lowest ID that applies to all of the photos and mark the DQA to say the ID can’t be improved.

I made up a trick for this recently-it’s clunky but it works. You might remember some time ago I wrote a tutorial on how to split up photos; several identifiers like to link that tutorial when asking the observer to split photos. So if I do a sitewide comments search, putting the URL of the tutorial as the search term, I can get back a list of observations that probably still need splitting. (Rarely the observer successfully splits the photos, but most of the time they don’t try. Or a few people say they tried and failed.) Then I can look at the list and see the ones still at Needs ID, and vote those ones as cannot be improved.

I have the search bookmarked on my computer, but am not at home now. I’ll share it here when I get back to it.

[graysquirrel]

@fffffffff

• More work on observations with disagreements

Do you know if there’s any way to search for Needs ID observations that already have multiple identifications? Most of the time it’s just 1 wrong ID holding up the RG status, so they’re pretty quick to clear out when I can find them.

[fffffffff]

Not in a easy way for now. https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/filter-for-observations-with-a-certain-number-of-identifications/20021

[dianastuder]

Agitate = actively encourage (as we do in this thread)

rather than sitting back and whining Someone Should Do Something About That Needs ID Pile (don’t look at me, I’m trying my bestest)

[dianastuder]

@lynnharper

one species per observation

Absolutely. Then mark as reviewed and next. If they don’t ever respond … I don’t want to see it again.

[richyfourtytwo]

@lynnharper

• I’ll start going through Unknowns with multiple photos where the photos are of different species, and I’ll leave a comment asking the observer to split the photos into different observations (with links to helpful tips on doing that). I’ll give those observers at least a month to respond; if they don’t, I’ll give the observations the lowest ID that applies to all of the photos and mark the DQA to say the ID can’t be improved.

I like that, but it seems observations dealt with in this way by a single IDer still stay in ‘needs ID’. :-( I think I read somewhere that 2 IDs are needed until the ‘cannot be improved’ vote has an effect, not sure though…

[dianastuder]

I have disagreements bookmarked

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?place_id=6986&lrank=stateofmatter&ident_taxon_id=47126

but since I clear mine every day, there is nothing to see.
Change the place filter to suit your choice.

[fffffffff]

Yes, it was changed to be so.

[lynnharper]

I think you’re right. So, I do what I can and move on.

[arboretum_amy]

@richyfourtytwo

I read somewhere that 2 IDs are needed until the ‘cannot be improved’ vote has an effect, not sure though

That’s right.

[richyfourtytwo]

Well, if multiple IDers do this and are aware, it might still work. So if I see such an observation in ‘Life’ in the future I will agree to that ID. Problem is I usually exclude ‘Life’ in my filter.

[arboretum_amy]

@graysquirrel

Do you know if there’s any way to search for Needs ID observations that already have multiple identifications? Most of the time it’s just 1 wrong ID holding up the RG status, so they’re pretty quick to clear out when I can find them

Short answer: no. Long answer: there two ways I attempt to go about this. One is to have a mental list of species that are often misidentified (bad computer vision suggestions, same common name, etc) and then do searches using &ident_taxon_id= and &without_taxon_id=. For example, stuff that’s not Asparagus setaceous would keep anyone busy for a while. The other method is to “shadow” another identifier whom I know typically identifies at species level (doesn’t work on people who also do a lot of course unknown sorting) or specializes in hunting down misidentified observations. I won’t call them out here, but I bet you could think of some, or you could try shadowing me (some course IDs will be in there but not super a lot.)

[arboretum_amy]

@arboretum_amy

I made up a trick for this recently-it’s clunky but it works. You might remember some time ago I wrote a tutorial on how to split up photos; several identifiers like to link that tutorial when asking the observer to split photos. So if I do a sitewide comments search, putting the URL of the tutorial as the search term, I can get back a list of observations that probably still need splitting. (Rarely the observer successfully splits the photos, but most of the time they don’t try. Or a few people say they tried and failed.) Then I can look at the list and see the ones still at Needs ID, and vote those ones as cannot be improved.

I have the search bookmarked on my computer, but am not at home now. I’ll share it here when I get back to it.

Here it is: https://www.inaturalist.org/comments?commit=Search&page=90&q=https%3A%2F%2Fforum.inaturalist.org%2Ft%2Fhow-to-fix-your-observation-with-photos-of-multiple-species%2F15096&quality_grade=needs_id I have it set on page 90 because I’ve already worked backward through pages 105 to 91. You could start again at page 105 if you want to be sure to catch things I’ve marked but didn’t have enough identifiers to go casual.

[jasonhernandez74]

@bobmcd

Possibly, if someone else were to substitute by using promote or encourage if they were getting sidetracked when reading agitate.

I had no problem with the word. She meant we need to stir things up, get people out of complacency.

[dianastuder]

Agitating for change is definitely a recognised concept - among those who do - which includes most active iNatters (not including the grudge students, or passing bioblitzers)

[egordon88]

It’s winter and there are 4 new pages of Cercocarpus

113 days until CNC 2022. My interpolation from the last 3 years is 1.5 to 1.7 million new observations this time.

[fffffffff]

My Insecta pile is almost 200 pages (of 100) smaller from October, if anyone else wants to check those where one more id is needed, there’re many like that. I started year with 1,5k ids a day and try to stick to it as far as I can.
My own got down 1k and now around 11,400, I kinda cry inside, next winter it’ll be huge, but I’m grateful to some iders looking through stuff from 2020 and iding/agreeing with some hard groups!

[dianastuder]

I have cleared Western Cape Unknowns

Now only 3 pages from today to look at!

PS 19 days ago it was 166 pages

[lynnharper]

You get the official (not really) iNaturalist Identifier Gold Star!

(We should get little pins with the iNat logo if we make over, say, 5000 IDs.)