i might just not be considering certain angles (though i dont know what these would even be), but i find that submitting an observation as unknown doesnt really have much of a point- even just marking that it is a plant, or a fish, or a mammal- surely anyone can do that? something truly weird that most people might not recognize on sight or look like something else (like slime molds looking like fungi) would make sense, but when its a plant? you can mark it as a plant? cause it is clearly a plant? i genuinely do not understand this and it just feels lazy to me to not even get it to that level.
again, if there is some angle ive never thought of, id love to hear it because otherwise this makes no sense
and the amount of posts ive seen that is just a pet dog marked as unknown is definitely enough to qualify as a pet peeve now lol
Yes, weāve discussed this in many different threads, here on the Forum. Mostly, those who enter an āUnknownā observation arenāt familiar with how iNaturalist works. They expect that the magic AI can do all of the identification for them, or perhaps the staff of experts who are magically paid by unknown sources. They donāt know that identifiers are all volunteers being overwhelmed by the incoming observations.
This. Tony shared the analogy of a relay race, passing the baton, and going to a more specific taxonomic level with each handoff. I think this is a good analogy or metaphor for how iNat works, but the ID process is not intuitive for new users. It doesnāt match the instant gratification that people are used to.
I find itās usually people who are new to inat or donāt use it often, and donāt even know to suggest an ID.
On the positive side, it gives a non-expert/hobbyist naturalist like myself a way to give back and do some IDing.
Iāve also seen a lot of āunknownsā that look like students doing a project. Iām not sure what project doesnāt require them to at least make an effort to ID things though.
It isnāt just that they arenāt aware that the IDs are being provided by humans. In many cases they donāt understand that they can enter a broad ID or why they might want to do so. If one is accustomed to other forms of social media, where it would be perfectly normal to post a photo with the comment āwhat is thisā and then get responses from oneās followers/other members in the group, the logic of iNatās ID system is counterintuitive.
It may seem obvious to the observer that the photo is of a plant or a spider or a bird; therefore it doesnāt occur to them to them why they would need to state this explicitly. If someone subsequently adds a broad ID to the observation they may react with annoyance or even feel like they are being mocked: āI know itās a plant/spider/bird; I want to know what kind it isā. They donāt realize that this information serves as a starting point for sorting or that what seems to them to be such a basic fact (this is a plant/spider/bird) is in any way relevant or meaningful for understanding what they saw.
I wish that iNat had better onboarding. Something like a game / tutorial - before - Level 1 - okay now, you can go ahead and upload some obs. With a second game / tutorial later to encourage - Level 2 - here is how YOU can ID or annotate - geared to that observerās interests and skills. Level 3 - now you can mentor for Level 2 ?
To avoid irritating people. The option to click a Seen This box, and flounder ahead.
Iāve even seen, more than once, people apparently looking at the photo attached to a high-level ID (dicots/flowering plants, for example) and saying āno, itās not thatā.
(Or at least, I canāt come up with any other logical way they could reach that conclusion!)
When you check the profiles of most of them (in the areas Iāve checked), they have a couple of observations years ago and thatās it. And they tend to be garden plants. So the energy to fix a blurry leaf in a pot really doesnāt seem worth it, but the user is in good faith (not that it matters since they left).
Last weekend I found an unknown observation withā¦ a rock. No moss or lichen on it, just a volcanic rock.
Iām planning to give a hand on our rainy days with this from now on, while listening to a podcast or something.
In the new app I think thereās a brief message about how it works and what for. But as other have pointed out, may new users download it while wanting in the moment to know what their begonia is and not caring any more about it an hour later. And since iNat is not giving them an instant (albeit inaccurate) response for captive plants they leave. I see it more like a filter than a user interface issue, to be honest.
Dicots shows a rose, and mine is a dahlia. Definitely not that!
I have a copypasta for that with a Help link. But I do sympathise, rocks come home with me. Rocks and landscape underpin plants, then animals. Very hard to see the living rock as āoutsideā of nature.
I rarely identify unknown to my observations, and it is mostly when I find something that Iām not sure is even alive. Things that look weird, but could be a Protozoa, could be just some disease or even dirt. I usually hope iNat helps if these strange-looking things, but sometimes it canāt. I upload it anyway, just to see if any other user can id it or at least add insight.
Also, sometimes I donāt know whether something is a slime mold, fungus, or virus, but I am confident that it is, in fact, alive. I upload it so that users can help me identify! But otherwise I rarely upload unknowns.
I would prefer A Plant to remain in Honest Unknowns, because many people ID those by preferred Location. But what is trapped at plants waits YEARS for a nit-picker like me to plough thru them - and fume at the Everybody Makes an obs of that, Anybody local could have IDed it on the day. I concede defeat and ID damned difficult dicots as such. But trapped at plant Kingdom we have 861K and we lack willing identifiers to tackle that. While Unknown is another 883K. To my planty eyes that is 1.7 million obs.
Personally, I try to watch both Plants and Unknown as they come in in the areas I watch. However, outside of that I rarely look at unknowns and am far more likely to review high-level plant IDs (Plants down to Dicots/Monocots). So as far as Iām concerned, Plants is better than Unknown - though further down is obviously better, as long as itās not wrong and going to need extra IDs to correct.
Because there are too many IDs flooding in, I have turned to supporting Newbies across my continent. Hoping to catch problems while they could / can still be resolved by the enthusiastic new observer.
I am encouraged as I ID for Africa. Yesterday was a Czech botanist working on Kenyan plants, interested in Afro-montane plants. Tick another taxon specialist box!
Maybe there could be some āUnknownā limit for each user that can exist in database?
For example 30 observations that can be added like that and when user tries uploading another unknown ID then some system info or warning to be displayed?
I strongly prefer that a plant observation be IDād to Plants, not left at Unknown. I do search on Plants (plus location) fairly often. I can understand your not wanting plants IDād as dicot or monocot, which are obscure headings to many people, but Plants works well. When I search on Plants I usually make a search that gets all Needs ID Plants observations, including monocots, dicots, and lower levels. You seem to search on just the higher ID level, like Plants or Unknown, and nothing below it. That approach works very well for you! Itās not mine, though. I really donāt want to push through Unknowns with their varied problems if I want to ID plants.
