I like both of these suggestions, and I agree that this would more comprehensively solve the issue, in addition to adding more value in other areas as well. Would it be worthwhile/appropriate for me to rewrite the request to focus on photo annotation more broadly?
Is there evidence of this problem, and is it widespread?
I’m mostly posting this as a follow-up to conversations on the Discord and in the forums where I’ve seen this concern expressed, so I’m not personally familiar with the evidence for some of the taxa of concern. My understanding is that there little evidence either way (i.e. little evidence that it isn’t a problem, and little evidence that it is), so people are making their own judgment calls. I wonder if some of the more commonly-seen cases of CV confounding (like plants and their parasitic leafminers/galls) may be leading people to conclude the CV is relatively easily misled.
Perhaps there are experiments or datasets that could be shared with the community to promote a better understanding of the actual situation regarding CV training?