At some point, years ago, cicada exuvia identified as Hadoa texana got into the CV model via wrong identifications that weren’t caught quickly enough (exuvia are notoriously difficult to ID). Since then, CV has been suggesting the species for exuvia, despite periodic efforts to clear out newer batch…

[image] yongestation: the first CV suggestion is overall right close to 90% of the time . [image] yongestation: As a whole ~90% of the species level CV IDs are correct, and all of these only need one supporting ID to leave the identification queue Whilst I agree with some of your core p…

I doubt we can tweak the CV to solve some of the most widespread issues. I think having identifiers slowly accumulate a list of taxa that are nearly always wrong and then stopping the CV from suggesting that name would be more effective.

Agreed. Especially in cases (like earthworms ) where organisms may not even be identifiable to family without dissection, or where the majority of photos do not show any identifying characteristics, the CV operating entirely on visual similarity are just guesses that cannot be backed up with anything…

[image] sbushes: Also, even that 90% on RG average seems strange to me fwiw - at least it doesn’t add up with the bars to the right…so I guess its something independent of them in a way(?) … I don’t see how this is true. Most of the taxon bars are on the right are lower, but plants are higher…

[image] yongestation: If nothing was ever initially IDed to species you’d be doubling the overall identification effort required on that (very large) proportion of observations on this site. [image] yongestation: I think people are underestimating the huge amount of extra identifying work…

Yeah, though I also find the very easy identifications a bit more tedious than the trickier ones, especially when I have to actually type in the correct ID and can’t just give it a quick agree (which is exactly the kind of identifying that this would add). I guess I just think a blanket approach is …

[image] yongestation: I don’t see how this is true. Most of the taxon bars are on the right are lower, but plants are higher and alone make up ~40% of all observations, whereas many of the lower bars (e.g. fish) represent an almost negligible proportion comparatively. [image] yongestation: …

[image] sbushes: It may be the average factors in total obs - we don´t know, as it´s not stated…but something else is definitely going on beyond that which is immediately visible. If you want to find the average across all 1000 randomly selected observations you can’t take the values you got …

There are a couple of options (risking that I will sound like a broken record) Accept that observations of some genera will be misidentified to taxa that have the most observations Spend your waking life correcting the misidentifications Improve suggestions Let’s just explore the last one. The C…

I’m going to make a question here before the problem arises so I can brace myself if the problem is incoming. Basically, for a long time no Partula species has been able to achieve 60 observations, but recently this year Partula radiolata has surpassed 60 observations. If I understand correctly, t…

Once something is incorrectly in the CV model, there's no removing it without diligent effort

General

Topic		Replies	Views
When the CV has confidently mis-learned a species General cv	114	2319	August 26, 2026
Are genus-level RG observations used for CV training? General question	38	995	April 16, 2025
Force computer vision to back off on the specificity of suggested IDs in regions with cryptic or hard-to-identify species Feature Requests identification , computer-vision	94	3227	July 20, 2026
CV suggestions no longer accurate after City Nature Challenge General	41	1030	May 19, 2025
Recommendations on improving the AI algorithm? General	47	1087	April 13, 2025

Once something is incorrectly in the CV model, there's no removing it without diligent effort

Related topics