High school photography teacher here. I’ve been obsessively using iNat for about six months now. I’ve logged 2,445 observations, 846 species, and made… 0 IDs.
As a photography guy with absolutely no experience (nor certainly, any confidence whatsoever) in taxonomy, I rely entirely upon iNat’s AI.
I know I should probably learn some rudimentary taxonomy, but I just find the photography so much more fun. Also, I’ve been fooled too many times by Mother Nature (“That ant is really a spider?!”) that any confidence I build up is quickly shattered by the cleverness of nature.
I’ve learned a whole lot through sheer osmosis, but ironically by the time I’ve learned to identify an organism on sight, I’ve photographed it enough times that I don’t bother making any new observations of it.
But that doesn’t mean I’m not very curious to learn the true identities of what I’m photographing. So sometimes I rely on tagging folks in the ID leaderboards, especially if they have obvious expertise in a particular critter and if they’re relatively local.
What’s the etiquette in tagging folks? Is it okay to tag someone if I haven’t done a lick of the hard work of taxonomy? Is it annoying? Under what conditions?
I usually only tag one person at a time, and only in cases where I have several good sharp photos, and/or if it’s something that seems unusual or notable to me - like it’s the first of its kind found in our county, for example. Or sometimes, I admit, when it seems like one should at least be able to identify the family, if not the genus, but the AI keeps me hanging.
Is it fair for me to do this? What’s the consensus out there? What are the rules of etiquette here? What are my taxonomic responsibilities?
From my short term experience on Inat, identifiers are cool people and don’t mind being tagged for ID help. I am fairly new here and so far everyone has been very respectful.
As someone who does a decent number of IDs on certain groups (nowhere near how many some people do on here), I think it is totally reasonable to tag a couple of the top identifiers. For me, the one thing I would note is that it annoys me when someone tags me and doesn’t say anything, just tags my username. I am interested in these organisms because I care about them, want to learn and teach people about them, etc. If it feels like someone just wants an ID so they can get that certain label on it and add more species to their total, I’m really not about that. If someone doesn’t care at all and just takes crappy careless photos and wants me to add a species ID (usually not possible), that is the only case that would annoy me personally. (Other identifiers might not care at all about these cases, so I might be more sensitive than most on this.) It sounds like you are consciously avoiding doing that, so I think you’re all good!
I usually tag one or two people and ask, “could you provide any thoughts on this?” I think it is open-ended so people can comment something if they would like, add an ID if they are confident, do whatever they think is best. If you enjoy learning about new things, I’d also encourage you to ask anything about that organism or group, people will either not answer if they’re too busy, or they might be excited to share and you’ll have a great conversation!
In general it seems like you’re a very thoughtful and considerate person so I think if you use your best jugment, you will not bother anyone and things will be totally positive. If you mostly just enjoy taking the photos, I think that is totally fine and it sounds like your level of concern and interest in this community is great. I wish everyone was as thoughtful as you!
A last note if you’re not sure of an ID is to leave it at a higher level like genus or family (even if you have to manually type it in and it doesn’t pop up from the AI/Computer Vision). This is something I wish more people did on here, as most bryophyte observations get to research-grade without sufficient evidence because people just assume the Computer Vision is right, and it creates a bad cycle where those RG observations than reinforce the CV. But that’s another story haha…
If an identifier has told you directly, or noted in their profile, that they’re fine being @ mentioned anytime, then feel free to do so.
That said, I wouldn’t make a habit of @ mentioning people from the ID leaderboards for a few reasons:
Leaderboards aren’t always accurate. If you do select from the leaderboard, it’s usually more helpful to choose someone from a specific geographic region (e.g., the state where the observation was made) rather than the global leaderboard.
Many top identifiers already use taxonomic filters. They’ll likely see your observation without being mentioned. It’s still important to add a general ID yourself, even if it’s broad (like “plants” or “insects”). Personally, I find it slightly annoying to be mentioned on observations less than 48 hours old in taxa I already regularly identify, since I would come across them through my normal filters anyway. If someone consistently mentions me on such observations, I will add a comment requesting they not do so.
In general, I think @ mentioning is fine in certain situations such as the ones below (not a comprehensive list):
Urgent need – e.g., you need an ID quickly for a datasheet or work-related task
Old observation – e.g., something that’s been sitting for at least several weeks without attention
Disagreement – when people have already weighed in but there’s disagreement, or if you disagree and want another opinion
But I wouldn’t recommend using @ mentioning as your default action for every observation (or even most of them).
2.5K obs ? Presuming you upload with your own ID, but maybe not. An obs needs ‘your’ ID and 1.25 more from other identifiers. The ‘and a bit’ allows for obs that need discussion beyond 2 agree.
So … by my lights you owe other iNatters 3.1K IDs. Please note - that is my wish, iNat rules require not a single ID from you.
There are no taxonomists employed to ID, all your IDs come from volunteers.
I personally really dislike being tagged without any context provided. If someone just writes @tiwane they should also be able to add a sentence explaining why they tagged me. When I tag someone I’ll usually add “what do you think?” or something along those lines, just to make it feel more human. But in my experience, a lot of identifiers don’t seem to really care, so I’m sure I’m a small minority.
(Also, as I’m a staff member and have multiple non-ID-related duties, it’s often a bit more ambiguous when I’m tagged than when a prolific identifier is tagged)
I really don’t mind being tagged with just my name, as the intention behind it is already clear by the tag itself. Maybe that is the German in me, make it efficient and skip unnecessary small talk
However, I surely do not mind if a line for the IDers that do mind is added.. so I guess if you want to play it safe, just add a little friendly “Thanks for having a look” or similar
I do not like it a lot when someone tags 3 or 4 or more global top IDers in one go, often just after a few hours or days (of course excluding the aim to resolve disagreements, which might require lots of IDers sometimes) .. I usually just ignore those, unless I am the first to see it and can send it to species directly..
Other then that, tag away.. however, if you want me to see several of your own observations, it might be more effective to send me a link to those observations via pm. And it surely feels rewarding to get a little thank you when I answered a lot of tags by you (but please not under each observation). I very very much enjoy those thank yous that involve IDing some of my observations in return - no written thank you needed, I will notice what you did there! Love when that happens and it often motivates me to have another look through that persons observations to see whether I can do more to help
To me, tagging is a special occasion, not the norm. In addition to the reasons @swampster mentioned for tagging, I will do it when I worry the expert won’t be able to find it. E.g. I know it’s Asteraceae, CV suggests a taxon with only a few observations in the area and it looks like it could be a match. Asteraceae has so many diverse observations, the expert on that taxon might never find it.
In case you aren’t doing this already, here are some strategies improve your tagging. View the taxa webpage (available from CV suggestion) and restrict the location to where the observation occurred. This will give a leaderboard restricted to that place. Also look at the observations and assess volume of RG vs Needs ID. Very low % RG is an indication that no one is actively adding IDs for that taxa in the area. The leaderboard may not be reflective of expertise.
I think the previous responders have already given a good range of recommendations. One I haven’t seen is that if you have insects or other organisms with very distinct life stages, adding Life Stage annotations to your own (or others’) observations can really help get them to the right identifiers. Sometimes I’ll get tagged on a caterpillar observation and it turns out that the observer never added the Life Stage = Larva annotation that would have gotten it noticed by me and the other caterpillar identifiers.
And if you’re looking for a way to help out, adding annotations (especially with a note explaining why you’re adding them) can be a very straightforward way to do so
You have the right idea to only tag one person at a time, I think. I prefer people also leave a note when tagging me that acknowledges I’m a real person and not some kind of automated bot. I also prefer people do a little research before tagging me to confirm that I’m the right person to tag. Sometimes total strangers tag me on a lot of random things and it’s a little frustrating.
I think the decent thing for most people to do is to give back to the community in exchange for the IDs that people donate. There are many ways to do this. I personally try to contribute an equal number of helpful IDs back to inaturalist as those that I have benefited from. I wouldn’t say that everyone has to do this, because everyone has their own unique skills and resources, but I think iNat makes it easy for almost anyone to make IDs (like by just going thru ‘unknowns’).
I do, however, think that it’s ideal that if you tag someone for an ID, that it would be polite to learn from the ID. If someone tags me repeatedly week after week to ID the exact same common species, they’re treating me sort of as an “IDing bot” and not as a teacher. That makes me feel like I’m wasting my time a little.
It’s a bit like a potluck. Some people come empty-handed. They enjoy the food, and that’s fine; there’s no law saying you have to bring a dish. iNat works the same way: you’re welcome to just share your observations and learn in that way.
But when you decide to bring something to the party — by adding refining IDs on other people’s observations — you’re adding to the table for everyone else. It makes the whole experience more rewarding and more balanced.
This is a great point and one that I’m guilty of not realizing until recently. I am a relatively new user and by no means an expert in any field (a casual gardener, excited by the chance to contribute my crappy photos to science), and I have usually just accepted what the app tells me about my observations.
It was when I chimed in on a species ID and made it Research Grade that I realized I’m not in a position to do that. Just because the thing looked to my inexpert eyes like something I had in my own yard, doesn’t mean I made the right call! So now I will only add higher-level IDs so that the experts have a better chance of seeing them.
I didn’t start identifying things until I had entered a lot of observations over a couple of years. I only know birds and common dragonflies of Ohio, and they get identified very quickly here. I do feel some responsibility to identify things. It’s not a requirement of this website. But, it is very helpful and appreciated.
One thing I started doing this past summer is to search for older audio bird observations in the general Midwest since I live in Ohio. You can do that with the filters by using the sort “Ascending”. I am pretty good at identifying a lot of common species, so this is helpful. And, I have found that it is enjoyable. I found that I can download recordings from the website and clean them up with Audacity. There are still a lot out there from over five years ago, but every little bit helps. I am trying to learn about bees and other insects. I would like to learn about plants. There’s a big need for plant identification.
You can only identify what you know about. And, you will only make the effort to learn about things that you are genuinely interested in. When it becomes an unenjoyable chore, you will quit.
I’ve only once had someone object when I tagged them, and it was an IDer who said something like, “Everyone stop tagging me!” in their profile. I was new to iNat and hadn’t looked at their, or anyone else’s profile. So I learned to always look at someone’s profile before tagging them.
Also - check that your identifier is still active. Top of the leaderboard, but haven’t been here for 3 years … try the next one?
PS the best people to @mention for help, are the ones you meet going thru the same taxon / location batch as you. That ticks all the boxes - taxon - location - active - identifier.
I see you mostly photograph arthropods, and you’re on Martha’s Vineyard. WIth a rudimentary search (Explore Arthropods Dukes County MA) you can find a few top identifiers and check their profiles. If they seem to also be local (they may not be – some people identify flies worldwide, for instance), you might contact one with a direct message describing yourself and asking if they’d be willing to FOLLOW you. They’d get a notification if you posted something and could choose to look at it – more of a personal mentoring situation than just tagging random folks. As your observations tend to be interesting and clear, I bet they’d be OK with that. You’re more likely to get some conversations going and who knows where the collaboration could lead.
You can do higher-level IDs. I spend about half an hour each day looking for unidentified observations, or obs identified as Life or Plant or such, and refining them. If it’s a plant, I tell if it’s a monocot, a dicot, a fern, or a conifer. If it’s an animal, it could be a spider, a winged insect, a mammal, or a bird. And sometimes I find something I know; once there was a feather which I recognized as a guineafowl, which the landlady has some of. There was a sound misidentified as a bird which I recognized as coquí (been there, heard that). My ID of something as, say, Asteraceae is followed by someone who specializes in Asteraceae of that region and identifies it to species; without my ID he wouldn’t have seen it in his filters.
For me, it is not so much annoying as confusing, especially if – as happened today – I get tagged on an observation of an organism for which I am not on the leaderboard. Did they intend to tag me on a different observation and put it on the wrong one accidentally? Did they read something in my profile and get the wrong impression?
Sometimes, if I have participated in a discussion on another user’s observation, I will then take something that I learned there, refine an ID on one of my own observations, and then tag the person from that other conversation along the lines of, “From communication with @username, …” and then complete the sentence with what I gathered from that discussion.
