This is compounded by the fact that many identifiers set a high standard of certainty for themselves and may not offer an ID if they feel some doubt.
4 Likes
Please stop constantly belittling the choices of IDers and blaming the lack of IDs on IDers’ supposed lack of confidence rather than a shortage of IDers relative to the number of observations.
What you think is “obviously that species” may be “reasonable doubt” for someone else. There are lots of factors that may contribute to a user being hesitant to provide an ID in a specific instance. Unless you can see inside other users’ heads, don’t assume that they are just being unnecessarily cautious.
For every observation that I skip because I’m not sure, there are dozens or hundreds more waiting, some of which I likely will be certain enough to ID. And chances are that the next person who looks at the observation I skipped will have somewhat different experiences and knowledge than I do, and may therefore be able to provide an ID where I couldn’t.
The corollary of wanting people to help with IDs is also recognizing their right to NOT provide an ID when they are not comfortable doing so.
4 Likes
We have statements on these forums that say “only identify what you are certain of.” Therefore, not offering an ID because of feeling doubt is a stated policy of some identifiers. For that matter, I have done it myself. How is it belittling to offer that as a factor?
Well, it can depend a lot. As arnanthescout did a really good job of explaining, there are different levels in IDing. However, I feel like that’s the case for most species where deeper you go, the more complex the taxa gets. However, if you need convincing that plants can be hard to ID, just look up ID for Carex species.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.