I would like a large red banner Opted OUT of Community ID
Such a waste of effort as people keep adding IDs, why is it STILL needs ID?!
12 Likes
I often write that as a comment so that hopefully the next IDer will see
5 Likes
Isnât that the way every pseudoscientist thinks? Vaccine deniers, AIDS deniers, COVID deniers, climate change deniers â they all have this one thing in common.
3 Likes
The current solution is that the observation is automatically marked casual grade after a certain number of IDs, in cases where opt-out continues to keep a taxon different from community ID. Dismissing IDs before that point seems unnecessary.
4 Likes
Youâd be surprised. I play-tested the feature for about a year before deciding to commit to it. A large number of cases were because the community ID was wrong. Keep in mind this doesnât have to mean an observer is claiming to know more than experts, or being stubborn. This also includes cases where people join and ID things without knowledge, or make unjustified assumptions, e.g. student accounts or newer users. I would say that is the most common case where opt-out is the right way to go.
In very minimal cases, the decision is up to the observer. For some experts, a species ID should only be given when itâs explicitly proven, and theyâll contest itâs use if it is used otherwise. For others, itâs a temporary label, and perfectly fine to use even if the ID is only probable or likely. And that inconsistency is something I try and balance. This is the most likely circumstance where Iâd opt-out of a community ID when it is given by professionals in the field.
2 Likes
As somebody who uses this feature, wouldnât you agree though that when you do opt out, youâre not soliciting input by the community at large? Would you agree that those observations should be distinct from the general âneeds IDâ category?
4 Likes
I disagree. Reason being, I do solicit input. The main reason I use opt-out as I have described before on other threads is so I can review everyoneâs input. If anything it means I take everyoneâs input very seriously because I read every one, compared to people who just let their observations to the will of community ID. In a majority of cases I am still hoping for input especially if I want further feedback, opinions, or suggestions, so removing them from âneeds IDâ would defeat the whole point of that.
I understand the general opinion is that needs ID goes against the purpose of iNat in allowing community deliberation and such, which continually paints that functionality in a bad light. Thereâs also this assumption that using opt-out has to ignore feedback, and that people waste their time even replying or IDing opted-out observation. But I insist that it isnât at all like that if used properly. It enhances the system in my eyes.
Itâs inaccurate to draw on obvious cases where an observer is simply refusing to submit to community ID of an expert, or wasting time of identifiers as a result. Because in many cases where opt-out works best, thereâs a lot of factors in those cases. I treat opt-out as a review system, as we have moderators on the forum who review posts before letting them free. And some people donât think observers should have that power to contest when they arenât as knowledgeable. Itâs hard to disagree with that, but that doesnât mean the way I go about things has to lead to lower data quality or further errors. I at least put a lot of research into the decisions I make so itâs not just a pick and choose scenario.
5 Likes
This is, in my opinion, how the feature should be used. Unfortunately there are way too many users who use this feature and never revisit their observations or engage with the community.
3 Likes
I wonder whether there might be different ideas on the value and purpose of opt out, depending on whether it is a taxon or a location where there are a lot of people who are familiar with the species likely to be encountered, or one where there are likely to be few knowledgeable iNatters?
Does opting out in any way stifle valid discussion of an ID?
Re the proposal to turn off AI suggestions for people who use opt out - this might be an effective deterrent for people in locations where AI suggestions are typically correct. Where I live, I would not be bothered if I failed to have (mostly wrong) AI suggestions offered.
I switched to opt out because I got tired of having people who were not sufficiently familiar with a taxon disagreeing with an ID, then one or more of the âwannabe head of the leader board for IDingâ fraternity agree with the wrong ID - and then if it is a taxon in which few people are interested that is the way it stays. I have seen no downsides of this approach with regard to my own records, and in particular have no indication that it has stopped people with relevant expertise from offering and/or discussing an alternate ID.
Happy to have anyone have a look at my 729 observations (539 research grade) of 435 species and tell me where my use of opt out has hindered correct ID (ignoring situations where I have been too busy until now to go back and consider alternate ID suggestions).
4 Likes
This seems a good way to use this feature, but I remain curious as to why itâs necessary to use opt-out for this. I review everyoneâs input on my observations (except for agreeing IDs) without opting out of community ID. However, I suspect you get many more notifications than I do because of the number of observations, so it might be unmanageable for you via notifications. Do you use a search for where your ID disagrees with community ID, or just review via notifications? I guess the main difference is that if I die or am too busy to review othersâ suggestions, community ID wonât be blocked.
3 Likes
The necessity is more a mix of what I believe is necessary maintenance and personal OCD. I also use iNaturalist as my personal database, so manually being able to go through and âadjustâ my sightings is beneficial to me there so that the changes donât just wash by before I have a chance to look at them. Besides this, I value the ability to learn from identifications so reviewing them one-by-one helps with this, and I can also inquire within a relevant time window as to why the ID was made (âname-only IDsâ are fine but itâs good to have information out there as to why an expert chose that name, especially for future IDs). Long story short, I could in theory use opt-in for this same goal, but it doesnât give me the manual review and control I desire.
This is also true whenâŚactually, I wonât link this to avoid targeting anyone, but there are cases where ID should not go further, but new non-expert users post species IDs. This happens often when common names are involved (e.g. âcommon green lacewingâ, leading to users applying this name to every green lacewing). In groups where there are lots of identifiers, this mistake is easily mended, but many cases there are none or few. I could tag my friends and say âhelp me fix thisâ but the idea of crowdsourcing IDs from people just for the sake of supporting my opinion doesnât sit well with me.
I read all notifications, and I donât filter any at this time, itâs manageable numbers. One shortcut is being able to use the mouse cursor to hover over and see if the grade has changed (from research grade to needs ID and vice-versa), which informs me if a changing ID or supporting ID has been made without checking the page itself. If an observation is already research grade and it receives a new ID Iâll usually skip it, as if it was a contesting ID that typically reverts it to needs ID on the notification.
6 Likes
You are the one opted out person I know on iNat, who has good reason and responds to notifications.
But when I see a string of IDs on an obs, from people I respect, it is a waste of their time, which could be better spent IDing elsewhere. Now I have learnt - see the string of IDs - check for opted out? - next.
1 Like
Thanks for the explanation, and yes, Iâve definitely seen cases like this too. One also gets to know consistently reliable identifiers within groups such as snails or hymenoptera which I canât confirm but whose IDs can be pretty well trusted.
That seems a tangible advantage of your approach, in cases where you can be pretty confident a new ID is wrong. Personally Iâd prefer to only opt-out in individual observations where this arises, but I can see how your use of the function as a filter makes sense where such cases might happen a lot. In some sense you are taking more responsibility for the curation of your observations than the average user like myself.
3 Likes
I had one observation that I felt was justified at least temporarily for an opt out. It was research grade for several years until very recently when a new reviewer sent the obs back to genus level with no explanation as to why the previous IDs were wrong except that they misidentified the species. Because of the long time between the first ID and research grade and this latter one, I preferred the opt out. I saw no reason why the first identifications were incorrect.
2 Likes
I can see reasons for âopt-outâ to exist, especially in little-known groups where misidentification is common, or for new species most people wonât recognize. However, Iâd like to see a time limit on it, renewable if the observer is still here to choose.
3 Likes
Yeah, this is one of the unsolvable downsides to opt-out at present. If someone goes inactive, then their observations are basically âlockedâ indefinitely from updates, corrections, or otherwise.
On the other hand, having any system that enables opt-in might be undesirable just on basis of going against the observerâs preferences. As much as the data quality is important, the observerâs have the ultimate call at present. If the observer passes away, then this is potentially irrelevant besides on arguable moral grounds. But if they are just inactive, itâs still something to consider.
2 Likes
Still I think that once enough IDs are made, the site automatically cuts the observation to casual grade, right? So that shouldnât be too much of a problem. Iâve had my own observations become casual because several people IDed overnight, and I hadnât gotten to it yet to adjust my own ID.
3 Likes
It does not. Thatâs why thereâs many casual grade observations that persist with 10+ frustrated identifiers asking why it still hasnât changed. A user has to check a box at the bottom to change it to casual. I do this without hesitation for those that opt-out but donât participate in the community (whether active or not).
5 Likes
I might take off the universal opt out if I could reject ids with a reason.
As of now I have multiple observers who seem to have friends who jump in and incorrectly ID species and then they disappear. I have an Eared Grebe right now that a bunch of young observers have jumped in to bolster each other in an incorrect identification as a Horned Grebe. If I were able to reject those ids out of hand, it would make the opt out feature irrelevant.
I also use opt out to help me learn. There is a particular botanist who is awesome in detailing why he disagrees with my identification. I thirstily review his helpful suggestions and learn a lot.
On the other hand there are photos that are poor quality that can mislead others into misidentifying them as something else. Sometimes bad lighting or a turned head can make one species look like another. That is where Iâll have to check the box as the id is the best it can be and move on.
There are other community reviewers who love to demean others instead of offering unbiased reasons why they disagree. To me iNat is to add to the distributional record in real time not a photo contest.
So there are many reasons to opt out. I have thousands of unconfirmed observations and donât need to be agreed with, just need a rational explanations as to why there is disagreement.
2 Likes
I had a bad experience with a user who followed me and misidentified me. Thatâs why I changed the settings. But a third option would be good, to allow community identifications, except in specific cases where you can reject it.
1 Like