We are discussing this, as iNaturalist is structurally discriminating against so called “casual” observations. E.g. by not giving them “needs ID” status, filtering them out of standard searches and by not showing them in the “compare” feature. The consequences of this discrimination are different for different taxa.
For birds for example, it makes perfect sense to filter out the occasional escaped cage bird - most bird observations in urban landscapes will still be easy to ID with the iNaturalist compare feature.
This is very different for plants. Most plants in urban landscapes are planted, and the most abundant taxa will therefore not be displayed in standard searches and will be filtered out in the compare feature. The discrimination of casual observations is therefore detrimental to plant identification in urban landscapes. Especially beginners, but also experienced botanists on a visit to another continent, will find that this filter as a major obstacle when trying to ID plants.
It also seems that some of the experienced users you mentioned, did not realize until now, that we are in the middle of an extinction crisis. And they seem to lack the foresight that data on planted and cultivated taxa is urgently needed, e.g. to locate the last survivors of species that are extinct in the wild.
I would think that the structural discrimination within iNaturalist against “casual” observations, especially in the case of cultivated plants, is a not very thought through feature.
hope that helps