A push on identifications is very good, but some unintended consequences occurred to several of my observations where an identifier suggested a species other than what I had identified the observation to. In other words these were not unidentified observations. For example, I had photographed two different fall flycatchers, one I identified to Gray flycatcher and the other one to genus Empidonax. I gave detailed call note descriptions, behavior, and cited characters of color, bill shape, etc. An identifier suggested these were both Western wood-pewee, and gave descriptive characters of why they thought that, saying âthere is no way that is an Empidonax." I commented that I disagreed, and why. I said I had good confidence that this was an Empidonax. This went on for several commenting cycles, and then the identifier tagged others to suggest identifications. Those others sided with the identifier and their choice became research grade. I chose to delete the observations, unfortunately, rather than have the birds that I saw be identified to something that I strongly disagreed with based on behavior and vocalizations. I didnât want to see research grade labels on birds in fall plumage that are difficult to identify in person let alone in photos. The positive side to this is it will make me âup my gameâ in giving detailed descriptions of observations like this. The downside is the lack of the observerâs ability to veto a research grade label when we have low confidence in identifierâs choices. I have been birding since the 1980s and have taken ornithology classes in flycatcher identification.
FYI, you can always check YES on âBased on the evidence, can the Community Taxon still be confirmed or improved?â to prevent an observation becoming Research Grade.
at that point, I suggest you opt out of CID - for that obs. That forces iNat to use your ID.
And/or tag some inatters you trust to provide accurate ID. But that can be a losing battle if there are too many wrong IDs.
Opting out of Community ID is probably a good option in the case you describe, but please donât delete observations like this. The community has put a lot of work into interacting with the observation at that point.
I would also disagree with the characterization here of observers as âoverenthusiasticâ as I donât see evidence of that in the narrative here. The narrative here sounds like a case of iNat working the way it is intended - by clear discussion of reasons for ID and asking for input from multiple community members.
Thanks, I will do that next time. Good to know!
Thanks, I didnât know I could do this either. Will use this in the future.
This is bird - for which we have plenty of identifiers.
For South African obs I dug down to bedrock. Found some old obs with ⌠maybe 15 students supporting Team Wrong ID. Persistently poking the hornetâs nest with a sharp stick, my @mentions pull in their teams, and we do / did resolve the ID. Much harder if it is NotABird ! But active identifiers are a persistent and determined lot, we want our data to be tidied up and we do what it takes. (Back to my grindstone, the African residue from GSB)
PS that is the good and thoughtful use of Opted Out. Not so great when an observer Opts Out for âall of your IDs because mine is always rightâ ish. Confusing for newbies to realise the effect of their opting out.
Good points, and now I know how to handle this kind of situation, thank you. Although I still think the identifier could be described as overenthusiastic when they repeatedly commented that there is âno wayâ this is the species I thought it was.
Isnât the whole point of iNat to disagree on stuff? It seemed like a very productive conversation was being had that you decided to end and erase just because âIâm right, youâre wrong, and my opinion is more valid than yours.â For all you know, some of those IDers could have been birding since the 70s and have taught flycatcher ID classes.
It seems like RG is being held to a high standard of âthis is a verified and true ID,â (not just by you, but in general) when really it just means a regular study could have ID the organism this way. All studies have misidentification bias and trying to âcleanseâ iNat of that in this way just discourages future discussions and turns away new members.
Disagreement can be part of the process of arriving at a correct ID but I donât think itâs actually the point of iNat. Iâve been caught in those situations where I was 100% convinced of my ID and someone else was 100% convinced of their (different) ID. Maybe the photo was such that we both saw different things in it that led to our disagreement. If neither backs down, or if other IDers are equally split, maybe it just wasnât a diagnostic pic. But, yeah, I wouldnât delete that record ⌠just leave it hanging and maybe itâll be resolvable in the future. Then again, itâs your record and you can do as you like.
I certainly do not engage in âIâm rightâ type of arguments. If the counter-ID is convincing I change my suggested ID readily. This particular identifier repeatedly said there is âno wayâ my ID was right, and ignored my replies describing vocalizations and behavior like tail-flipping. I let it go on for a while but then the âno wayâ comments became counterproductive. At the time I did not know about the other ways to deal with contentious labels, and now I do (iNat has a lot of buttons!). Also, I think the original observer also has a certain responsibility to head off low confidence identifications becoming âwritten in stone.â Some observations need to be left without a positive identification. This in no way turns away new members when done in a respectful manner, which is what I strive for.
I certainly agree with that. Also, itâs good to remember that the observer might have info on certain characteristics of the organism â you mention vocalizations and tail-wagging behavior â that an IDer looking at a photo doesnât have and might not consider since it is not evidence captured in the record.
Exactly.
Often, if Iâm challenged by someone Iâm not completely sure is likely to be right, but not being very sure myself, I back the taxon up to a level I am confident of. If the personâs profile, comments or so forth give me reason to think they are experts, I do the same up to the first common taxon level between mine and theirs to just lend the support but not just agree when I donât know for real.
I rarely just withdraw my IDs completely. They act as a sort of an ID-ing context, of what it was thought as of and I feel thereâs a point to that. Still, after discussing with an aphid expert about the difficulties of identifying most aphids to certain species level without a sequencer, I learned to just ID as far as I am comfortable with and leaving it at that. It might attract someone whoâs marked that taxon as their interest.
Those are good points, thanks. I will follow that advice in the future.
Iâm looking and I donât have that button on my observations for Community Taxon. I am going to have to dig into this more.
You can only opt out of community taxon on specific observations if there is at least one other ID and your ID is different than the community taxon (i.e., you cannot opt out preemptively for individual observations).
I can understand the frustration as it has happened to me. The last time this came up I enlisted some friends to turn the abberant ID into a maverick as the identifier wouldnât respond to several requests. It was an obscure species which immediately got kicked up to the common family/superfamily. For a while I was wondering where the observation went. I guess this would be a job for blocking the community ID. The observation would remain non-RG and if it was necessary to change an ID, no one else would have an ID to change.