A bird is sitting on a dry tree. The photo just shows a few centimeters around the bird, the whole tree is not visible. First id “Plantae”. Um, that must be a mistake. My id: “Aves”. “No, no, no! The bird has already been identified. This is for the plant.” A bird with a seed in its beek. Identifiy…

They could just tick “good as can be” right away which would help (though not take it out of the ID queue right away).

[image] anon83178471: Yes. Usually the only thing that moves it out of the Needs ID grade is to use the DQA. “It’s as good as it can be” is usually what is most appropriate. It will put it at casual. don’t you need a second id to get this to happen? I wish it did work this way but last i chec…

Yes, I think they would need two. But if they check it right away, then only one IDer will have to interact with it (eg, they could give any ID, even just a non-disagreeing “Life”), which is an improvement over lots of IDers.

i wish more people would do non-disagreeing higher level IDs for observations like that. It’s too binary to either add a disagreeing ID and just totally knock it back involuntarily (justified for some observations but overused imho) or just click reviewed and contribute nothing to fixing it

[image] sedgequeen: A couple times, I’ve posted habitat shots of birds I can hear but not see. Wouldn’t this immediately qualify for a DQA of “No” for “Evidence of an organism”, that is, without a photo or recording? I’ve occasionally included habitat images for context but only as a 2nd, 3r…

Sounds like a bit of an edge case. In general, iNat asks not to include habitat shots that don’t include the organism, but a habitat shot zoomed way out which does contain the (tiny and unidentifiable) organism is technically ok. If there were really no way to assess/ID the organism in a pic, but I…

[image] DianaStuder: (DQA to Casual … oh that will not be welcomed!) If an observation of mine is DQA to casual is because of “It’s as good as it can be,” I’m not averse to just deleting it. That DQA rating is tantamount to saying that it isn’t useful. Plus, it makes it not useful for my life…

I generally try to avoid DQAing other people’s obs to casual - I’ve said this much on other threads though, I really only try to use it on groups I’m really sure of, like Russula. Though I’m sure there are some people out there that are more casual about it.

[image] jasonhernandez74: If an observation of mine is DQA to casual is because of “It’s as good as it can be,” I’m not averse to just deleting it. That DQA rating is tantamount to saying that it isn’t useful. Jason, I quite disagree. There will indeed be many cases of images of small (curre…

Yes. It’s not a good idea, though I’ve done it. But it is one of the allowable uses of iNaturalist and sometimes it has some value, at least for one’s own records.

Observers Mocking Identifiers?

General

Topic		Replies	Views
Identifiers as Volunteer Curators, and Obs with Probs General	103	4817	November 24, 2023
Where are all the plant lovers? General	74	3270	November 20, 2022
Patience is a virtue General	45	1431	April 4, 2021
Waiting for ID`s General	51	1466	December 24, 2025
Shouting into the Abyss - Why do some "easy" observations sometimes go unidentified? General	81	2154	September 21, 2024

Observers Mocking Identifiers?

Related topics