Perhaps part of onboarding for new people needs to be - check range / distribution.
1 Like
I wonder how many of the people suggesting requirements for new users would go for it being retroactive – i.e. no matter how long you have been here, you must go through the process too.
3 Likes
Sure, all users are susceptible to mistakes, it would probably be helpful for everyone to get a refresher course.
3 Likes
I wouldn’t want to do it. Though I make mistakes, too.
The new onboarding could be offered to all
with an option to - close this, don’t show me this again
1 Like
My AI suggestions frequently give me suggestions that are not reported nearby. I don’t recall ever changing this feature from the default setting.
Also, I have seen dozens if not hundreds of incorrect ID’s of far-out-of-range species, and when disagreeing with them people often chime in that they only selected the ID because it was the top choice recommended by the AI.
Perhaps the AI recommendations have been improved and no longer do this, but if that’s the case, we have countless incorrect ones floating around out there from before this change was enacted. And I’m not even sure it works this way, because of how my recommendations show up.
The one thing I do like is that the recommendations do clearly show that the species is not reported nearby, when it’s something unusual for the area.
2 Likes
Yes, it was changed this year, when cv is “not sure” it starts suggesting all the wrong things from everywhere, there’s a feature request to stop this happening.
Do not make assumptions based on # of a persons IDs. I casually know one individual who has 22K IDs, but they are all the 4th, or 5th “agree” on an established observation. I know this person is not an expert and effort is not put into the ID.
I am also not an expert and only have a few hundred ID’s, but I can easily spend a half hour on one as the ID process allows me to go through my books and websites and narrow the options down to what I believe is correct.
3 Likes
Many, if not most, experts that I know have very few IDs because they prefer to spend their time doing actual work rather than adding identifications that don’t have much meaning on a citizen science website. Others that do… then they probably have a lot of excess time.
2 Likes
I don’t make that assumption. I’ve got lots of ID’s, and know it is somewhat meaningless. Except that I can serve as a resource for others. I know there are people out there who can put up far more ID’s than me. I put the effort in, and only ID what I know. I spent over an hour this week on one ID. The only time I add a third ID is if I’ve done the work and found out that someone beat me to it. Sort of figure I deserve it. I’ve never made a fourth ID.
4 Likes
I have been known to make a third or fourth ID on a disputed observation, to strengthen the one I believe to be correct.
3 Likes
Thanks for the correction but as an alternative, I may have “over-typed” the “a” ;-)
1 Like
That happens to me after I have spent considerable time on an ID. In that case, I also Agree because I have looked into details (I also disagree if that is appropriate).
My goal is to ID items at my home volunteer preserve.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.