I have 20333 observations that still need IDs. Some, especially the older ones, may be unidentifiable because my pics were a bit terrible or I didn’t know which parts to photograph. Others likely can’t be identified visually - weird leaf spots, random fungus blobs, witches-broom growths of unknown origin - I mostly just wanted to note where I found them.
I periodically go through my Needs ID group and try to figure out some of the ones stuck at higher levels. I’ll tag people if it’s something that seems really unusual or that I’m exceptionally curious about, but I’m always concerned about being annoying to identifiers, so I try not to do it excessively.
So I guess to answer your question, I don’t completely ignore my old observations, but I’m also not super attached to them all becoming research grade eventually. Confirmations or refinements are always nice, but I’d rather they come because someone finds the observation interesting, not because they just want to get it out of the way.
Generally I just upload and ID the best I can, then leave them to their thing. I will check the ones I was unsure of when a notification pops up.
I pay a lot of attention to local projects though, and quite often I will see something come through with an ID that matches something I added that still needs an ID, which gives me a good reason to revisit.
After the Inat identification feature upgrades I will often go back though some observations that seemed like they should have been identifiable, and often enough the upgrade will give me a good suggestion that time around.
I batch do a batch upload almost daily (sometimes more than once). After that I may look them over for a few days and then that’s it. For me it’s better to concentrate on learning what it is I’m dealing with “today” than worrying about the status of observations from 2016, 2017, etc. I knew practically nothing back then and now know that many were not shot to best advantage and will never reach RG so as I see it I’m further ahead working on more current observations, which I’m a lot better at in 2022 than I was in 2016.
Additionally, when I’m done with my stuff I like to look over all the observations that came in that day from others in my area. I monitor three counties including mine (in addition to selected others on my friends list). I learn a lot about organisms in my area by looking at what others are finding. Giving them IDs when I can often becomes reciprocal, which might (?) lead to more accurate IDs considering they know the area.
With all that said, as winter sets in, if I have time I will might go back and look over some of my older observations. There was no AI in 2016/17 and I think 2018 so and I’ve learned a lot since then (much from the AI in spite of its growing pains) so I should be able to ID many of them now. The only problem is that older observations don’t get looked at that often so even correcting one or refining it may not help at all if nobody is looking. One fellow told me he duplicates old ones that he has updated and deletes the original putting it back at the top as a new upload with the proper observation date. Maybe that’s the way to go on these older observations we now know?
As far as what is the “right way” I honestly don’t think there is a “right way” or “wrong way” in general other than what works best for you.
As mentioned earlier, joining local projects can help a lot too!
I go back to visit my old records, like old friends, to check in and see how they are doing. Sometimes I’ll add a note to one, dress it up a little, which clarifies something that I forgot to put in at the time. We visit for a while, reminisce, and then I say goodbye, perhaps never to meet again.
I’m joking (in part) of course, but it is fun to occasionally see what I was posting several years ago and the records of which I’ve largely forgotten. I’ve seen a few that I have no recollection ever taking that picture.
I think it would be nice (speaking as someone doing a lot of IDing for others as of late) that if you think your own photo is not IDable due to quality, and it has been sitting a while, to either remove it if you know it’s reallllly bad or bump to good as it can be even if that gets labeled casual. For the former thought - like - I see photos of General Woods with many things in it, and the person still (YEARS later) has never answered what in the image they want ID’d so it’s stuck at plants, or maybe dicot if there aren’t monocots in it, etc. and honestly some with the lensflare or lack of image quality it would be hard even if they wanted the largest shrubby tree in the image ID’d. So at least like…add in more text data to help us please :))
If you know that good ID’ers have looked at your image and agree at genus and don’t feel comfortable suggesting a species, it’s been sitting a while and has multiple opinions that genus level is best, again it would be nice to just check “good as it gets” and move it off the ID pile. Ya of course Some One in Some Future may know a New Key thing, but if they are that much an expert they would quickly know on this site to check genus-level if they wished to help ID :)
I try to keep an eye on my own observations, but I ID so much I have the agreeing notifications turned off. As I learn, and as more ID’s are made, I will go through periodically and bump to ‘good as it gets’ on my own stuff. It’s easy to see with a scroll through of your “obsevation” tab… for example if I see ones like this - 2 additional ID’s, 8 comments in a discussion - I moved this to RG. Cladonia are tricky af. If I scroll though my observations and I see things like 2 or 3 additional ID’s esp with comments on them too, I can easily check it out and make an informed decision on what to do :)
I only chase up IDs that i consider important.
It could be because…
• I care passionately about a particular area for conservation eg. Blackburn Sanctuary in a lot of my observations.
•If something looks out of place… sometimes weeds look like weeds. Or sometimes I think something is a weed… I used to think
Senecio quadridentatus was a weed so I’m glad that I was able to ID it before picking it . I have started becoming involved in local working bees in reserves… so INaturalist has been key to me learning weeds.
•I love to ID something simply because it looks cool but i have often difficulty following it up… spiders and fungi always have me curious. I am tempted to approach other iNaturalist members but ironically i don’t want to seem like I’m “bugging them”
I also observe things i know because i feel the data is important for conservation efforts.
Also I’ve found the repetition of posting the same ID over and over again has helped me learn to name the plant.
Sometimes i become frustrated that i didnt visually observe enough of the subject or take critical photos that allow for an ID.
“Excuse me Mr Butterfly can you please turn over so i can take a photo of your abdomen?”
Oh, I regularly come back to my observations an play around with them. I love that. I have all notivications turned on (tried it out to silence it a bit, but it left me really uneasy… love to see what´s happening).
As I am as an IDer occasionally lashng out of my comfort zone, I usually start with my own observations. For example if someone added a finer ID to family or genus, I might go and try to figure out which species are present in the country and how they can be distinguished. I will go to my observations from this taxon and try to get deeper into it and if I figured out something, I will also check observations from others and add my suggestions based on what I just learned. Love that.
Or if I found something cool recently, I might go and have a look what other relatives of this species I have found in the past and where in the world.
I sometimes go back to certain trips and try and see if I can improve anything myself or find a IDer that might be able to help… this is especially likely, if I am about to do this trip again. Love to clean it up a bit, before adding new observations… and also potentially being able to know what species or features of certain species I want to focus on to be able to put my next observation of it to RG… for that I need to know what distinguishing features are.
Sometimes I just by accident are reminded of certain observations (because maybe I saw something similar) and check back with them, if they can be improved.
I have deleted observations on occasion, for similar reasons. Blurry picture of a fallen bird’s nest, I ID it as “Birds,” add appropriate observation fields; if it doesn’t go anywhere from there, despite the popularity of birds and large numbers of expert birders, I conclude that it is simply too blurry to be useful. Gone.
Other times, if I believe that a given observation can be improved over my initial ID, I will go back to it days, weeks, or months later after researching it further. I recently did this with two of my Gastropods, for which I have since proposed species.
I also check every new upload every day for at least a week to see if there are any signs that someone saw and interacted with it. If not, I might add explanatory notes – although I have learned that these are not useful because they seldom change anything.
If your pictures are good enough, tag in the appropriate taxon specialist. They will look at older obs if asked. And they also trawl thru RG obs to check that they are IDed right.
I usually just wait for specialists to find my obs and then update, and once I recognize those specialists I might ping em for stuff I’m not confident on
That is a good idea that I do use from time to time but most often on more current observations. I should have probably elaborated more on my circumstances. I’m a journalist who is constantly pressed for more work.
So time is my biggest enemy. I have so many interests and obligations beyond nature photography and iNat that the hours I spend on it almost every day puts a serious strain on my other activities some of which are far more important than my nature activities.
So I try to get the most bang for my buck by focusing on refinements to newer observations where I get more action. Tagging helps a lot, to the degree that I have at times tagged every person listed in the top observers section. Only problem is on the older ones, the responses are fewer than on the more current observations even when you do tag the experts. That’s probably because the photos I provide today are far more detailed than they were back then. Today I probably post too many photos of many organisms but I know that sometimes it is just one photo out of seven or eight that one expert sees that allows him/her to bring it to the genus or species level. I have some older observations that have never reached research grade only because one decenter has dug in thinking he is right when back in 2016 it just so happens we were both wrong. What I need is 48 hour days! LOL Thanks!
Nonetheless, there are some old ones that bug me all the time: Like the first two observations on this list: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?order=asc&order_by=observed_on&place_id=any&taxon_id=339576&user_id=ken-potter
I’d really like to see these corrected but the maverick is convinced that the color of the buff is more consistent with Northern (as he explained in the third observation) when in fact the color was caused by my camera settings being wrong. Maybe I will duplicate these and delete the old ones in order to get them corrected. Seems to be the only way.
If you choose to delete then duplicate. Previous identifiers will in turn be forced to duplicate their work. They also may not appreciate that in their busy lives. Sometimes we need to agree to let obs rest in peace. They may still phoenix and fly up when a new identifier gets to them. Our mosses are moving …
I’ve been on iNaturalist for over year now, and I still find myself returning to old observations. Sometimes, it’s to add more specific identifications, others, it’s to add tags, observation fields, or related projects.
I view observations as living documents which can be improved and built upon. I try to make my observations as useful as I can, and as my experience on the platform grows, it inevitably means I have to go back to old observations. But, I enjoy the process. It’s fun to look at the past and seeing how much I’ve grown.
Perhaps you duplicate/delete and then tag/tell the folks who had ID’d (correctly) those now-deleted photos. You could explain what you did and why. I’m sure they’d be fine with returning to re-ID what are obviously not Northern FS… sigh. (It’s not just color; the eye size; head shape; and yes, the range; all factor in; I think even the dorsal pelage color is useful).
To the original question: I almost never go back. However, somehow I clicked a radio button that yields an email anytime someone interacts with one of my image posts. This is great! I’m not sure how I did it but I like it. So anytime someone agrees, disagrees, etc, I get an email. And then I go take a look. Correct as needed; or bask in the limelight as appropriate. : )
I have a busy job and do a community service/volunteer gigs so I don’t get to post often and have 100’s and 100’s of photos in waiting… (thus not many emails to contend with).
I tend to agree and haven’t done this yet but it sure is irritating that some observations just languish due to a wrong ID by somebody who will not retract it (perhaps due to not even being active on iNat anymore). In my case, since there are only five of six observations out of some 38,000 or so, I really don’t think a move like this would impact the ID’ers much. We are talking about less than one observation a year. But I can see where this could be problematic if others followed suit … Thanks!
I’ll have to set up my email for this! That would be very helpful! I had no idea there were that many differences between the Northern and Southern FS! Thanks!
Can you not @mention more identifiers to the neglected / trapped obs ? I choose between relevant taxon specialists and a few local identifiers who are willing to help tip (informed) disambiguation.
Yes, that is exactly the way I do it. Unfortunately that doesn’t always work. Keep in mind I have not indicated this is a practice of mine and it isn’t. I’m just trying to point out an option that the original poster was fishing for. I hope it didn’t come off as me suggesting that is the best way to start looking for IDs. I felt that was already well covered. But for a person who is more hyper about getting IDs to species level than I am, especially for a rare species this may be an option of last resort to consider.
Color the original poster extremely confused since she is unaware she was fishing for anything at all (except perhaps for tacit permission to continue blithely ignoring her observations once uploaded. Oh! And confirmation that she is not the only one!)
. I have started becoming involved in local working bees in reserves… so INaturalist has been key to me learning weeds.