This issue is related to at least two recent threads
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/agreeing-with-experts-and-research-grade/3718/43
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/issue-with-users-automatically-agreeing-to-an-identification/2987/36
In those threads there were a lot of suggestions about how to deal with it, and some debate about whether we even need to (is the issue big enough to matter?). There were problems with or arguments against just about every suggested solution proposed in those threads. I think it’s fair to say there was no consensus reached, and there probably won’t be in the near future.
There are two main problems with people playing a numbers game with IDs. First, observations can get to RG (and then into GBIF) with incorrect IDs. Second, it can waste a lot of time—it’s very quick and easy to click the agree button, but it takes ages to trawl through and correct IDs. And unfortunately there will always be a few people who ignore the gentle approach.
As a scientist, I definitely share @jmaley’s frustration with this, and would like to see the data gathered in iNat as accurate and useful as possible. However, it’s clear that the site’s primary mission is to engage as many people as possible with the natural world. Certainly we can and should continue to try and engage and inform users so as to improve data quality—no question about that. We’ll never reach perfection, however. So I guess the bottom line is that if anyone wants to use the data, the onus is on them to check/filter/prune etc until they’re happy with the quality of the sub-set they’re left with.