Apologies if this is posted elsewhere and I didn’t see it. I’ve seen a couple of examples of what I call overzealous identification, where it would appear a user has gone through and just agreed with the identification of every observation that isn’t research grade for certain taxa. I’ve seen it with two accounts in particular, both of young users who can’t possibly identify many of the observations they’ve identified, either because of poor quality photos or lack of identifying features. Both observers focused on birds but also “identified” other taxa. One has almost 57,000 identifications and the other has over 14,000 identifications.
They have gone through and made many unidentifiable observations research grade. As a scientist who uses iNaturalist observations in my research I find it very frustrating to encounter these observations, in particular on GBIF. I wrote to one as nicely as I possibly could but never heard back and the observer continued identifying.
Is there a way to fix this? Is there a way to remove a user’s ability to identify? Can curators blanket remove spurious identifications made by particular users?