Not to get too far off topic … I totally agree. The ability to find those look-alikes in the first place is even twice as hard (or more!) in Mexico vs USA and Canada. I started IDing Penstemon in my home state of New Mexico (45 native species) followed by Colorado (60) and Arizona (40ish). The neighboring plains states are generally simpler (aside from angustifolius/haydenii confusion in Nebraska), but Utah (75), California (50ish), and Mexico (40ish) still give me trouble. I’m in the camp that occasional mistakes are okay and even expected. We’re only human after all. Whether someone chooses to hide or embrace their mistakes is not a big deal in my opinion.
6 Likes
I don’t think that’s actually the case. Take Harris’s Hawk for example. I am the lead identifier for that species but I am definitely not the most knowledgeable about it. Maybe sometimes, but not always. Also, for higher taxon, the leaders could only be knowledgeable in specific locations(top plant ID’er only has knowledge in California and Western US plants, so that wouldn’t help someone in Australia trying to figure out plants.)
3 Likes
Well, for sure the leaderboards are a good way to start… for sure much better then random. I use them all the time!
3 Likes
That is for sure an ideal way how that would work. However, in reality it is not always like that.
I am quite heavily suffering from imposter syndrome (and unfortunately, after opening up about that at some point in real life I was shocked how common that is, especially among well educated people… even experts in their fields). It´s easy to get me insecure even if there is no need actually.
I recall a case where I stumpled upon an RG observation I immediately though was wrong… but it was supported by some of the most knowledgeable IDers of these organisms groups here on iNat. That time I dared to express my doubts and we quickly reached consesus on that one. Often times I don´t.
Another RG-case came with the comment that the ID has been confirmed in an discussion board full of experts. I know that discussion board, used it a lot in my learning phase and value their opinion highly. So I just left a comment stating why I am confused about that ID but if the people there IDed the organisms as such, if would not disagree. The observer desided to put the obersvation again to that discussion board… turn out I was right, so in the end we were able to correct the ID here on the plattform… but I wouldn´t have gone rogue on myself, even if I actually often know my stuff as good as anyone else could…
That´s unfortunately how it often works in reality… biased by authority is a real thing.
8 Likes
I’m not sure how exactly the “similar taxa” thing works but it does not seem to be just maverick IDs that affect it. The counts in the corner of the species on the similar taxa tab seem to go up even when you just add a disagreeing identification to a 1 identification “needs ID” observation.
1 Like
If someone you consider an “expert” on the taxon has withdrawn what you believe was a correct ID, try to find out why. You might add a comment saying “@expert1 Do you know of any reason why I should not ID this as a Common Sunflower? Your withdrawn ID has me wondering if there is something more I need to learn about this taxon I have been confidently identifying. Thanks!”
5 Likes
Definitely not the case.
A person can get top identifer status for an entire genus by being the top identifer for a particular species in their own particular area if there are few identifiers of other species in the genus sleswhere.
Said person may be knowledgeable about their particular species, but not at all about the rest of the genus but they still get listed as top ID person.
Also, sometimes it’s just someone who is very active in their area, but doesn’t have a great deal of knowledge overall, they are just familiar with their own areas.
Or, you can get it for a very small number of IDs if it’s a species that’s not commonly observed, resulting in you getting top ID despite not being the best person on that species or genus.
Personally I ignore the top ID status entirely and will interact with people who have already proven themselves to be active in my area (ID or otherwise) and species in question even if they’re not the “top” person for said species, genus, or region.
4 Likes
To answer your original question - your gut feeling is telling you to ignore this identifier in future. iNatters are mostly kind and helpful and some go way beyond the ‘call of duty’.
When I work thru Unknowns and ID confidently as beetle, then use CV to leave a comment Maybe this and the conversation unfolds to new species - makes iNat addictive!
4 Likes
I don’t consider this a contest. It is a method of learning species I do not yet know how to identify. In every group there will be someone(s) who behaves in a non-cooperative manner.
2 Likes
I mean there are always exceptions but I would say for some groups where someone has thousands of ID’s and their name has consistently put up robust ID’s for years, that you can trust the leaderboards. For insects I have run into very good identifiers by tagging the top IDers. If you are using it to ID a species where the leaderboard is in the single digits, then there might be an issue. Most of the GOOD IDer’s of say moths will leave ID’s at the genus if there is difficulty (genitalic dissection needed), or just refuse to place an ID. There are not many spam IDers on moths and it is easy to notice them if they do show up. I would not search the leaderboards for specific species either and more focus on the genus and above so you’re not super focused on someone who wants to ID one very obvious species and run up his/her ID tally. That often happens as I get notifications that all of one species is getting ID’s. It’s like one person is going through and agreeing with all the Rosy Maple Moths, and this wouldn’t be someone I tag for nuanced moth ID.
…which is why it doesn’t save until you then go down and click “Save.”
I wouldn’t. It means that observations get stuck at genus, or complex, or maybe even family, not because there are sympatric look-alikes, but because people assume that there must be from having seen so many of those debates.
And what’s even more discouraging is seeing the same two people having the same argument across multiple observers’ observations. Note to self: don’t interact with that taxon in that place. That goes double if the gist of the argument is the ever-popular “It’s a hybrid.”
Um… that’s a big part of how one becomes an expert.
4 Likes
When IDing your own observations in the app, clicking is not even in the workflow. You type part of the name, wait for it to appear, then hit it with your finger or similar. The suggestion has often changed at the last moment.
Couldn’t agree more.
3 Likes
This identifier could have simply missed your ID and, later, have noticed the other ID.
I think that anyone has the right to delete every ID, right or wrong, even in the case someone else has provided a different ID.
It could not necessairly be a malicious behaviour. One could act so just to ease the obs to reach RG.
I think that no one here has any responsibility for ID mistakes unless these mistakes are maliciously made (e.g. to lower the obs. identification rank).
In the case,try to get in contact with such identifier and ask a reason or just ask for more identifications to agree with yours.
iNat is sometimes somehow a school of life in terms of training you to deal with people.
EDIT: PS: yes, there are some “top identifiers” that simply agree without verifying anything thus sometimes contributing to create a mess. They do not understand that they are not helping anyone acting this way.
4 Likes
That is a deliberate workflow for some identifiers. An easy way of recording seen that obs next
4 Likes
I do that often for plants in my region as I write flora treatments, for example.
4 Likes
I do the same, going through a genus that in many cases (e.g. depending on location or timing) cannot go to species level and thus often does not have even a single IDer agreeing with them, even if it is super obvious… but on my way through gazillion pages I will also run into the ones that already have 5 agreeing IDs and I will then just also leave mine as well… just so I know I have seen it and also others know I agree with it staying at genus.
I recently also had issues with the “marked as seen” field… those observations just popped up in my feed again after a while… sometimes even observations where I left an ID… I am now even more likely to add my ID even if there have been enough already
3 Likes
from the 27 hours offline?
I am happy to see a string of notifications which reassure me that’s a trusted identifier in future (and I pre-unfollow each obs when I am done with that one).
I would disagree with that silo view of information. There isn’t a dichotomy where you either have to 100% block out what others are saying, or 100% be dependent on it. Those are both extremes, and there are plenty of spots in between where you can healthily consider the input of others without overweighing it.
Consider in particular: why would you wait until only after you’ve posted an ID to start listening to others disagreeing with it? You can absolutely look and check yourself before you submit your ID. It’s a better use of everyone’s time. I think you’re confusing looking at what others are saying before submitting for like… not even thinking at all for yourself and just repeating the ID of someone else that you think is an expert. Those are pretty different actions.
They’re also vastly different in terms of impact on data quality, among other things. Choosing to not engage with an issue isn’t truly problematic, honestly, but falsely agreeing is. Obviously neither is perfectly ideal, but one is somewhere between neutral and frustrating, whereas the other threatens data integrity. Quite nearly everyone who’s an amateur or above (besides a few peak experts) is literally constantly skipping observations because they feel that their level of confidence isn’t within the threshold necessary to add an ID, among a few other reasons. If it’s problematic to say, “pass”, then we’re all in the wrong here. Meanwhile, incorrect IDs increase the rate of error and directly reduce the value of iNat data for research purposes, and any given user who is prone to causing erroneous IDs (for example, by hitting ‘agree’ for basically no justifiable reason) is going to also be prone to disturbing large quantities of observations/data. One person can do a lot of damage. This also requires misunderstanding data quality standards and basic site functions.
Subsequently, I don’t think it’s fair to conflate the two behaviors. Relying on and reflecting on feedback aren’t the same, and while one is innately significantly problematic, the other really isn’t. They’re only similar because one is the other taken to a wild extreme. Pretty much anything is bad when you take it to an extreme. I mean, you can die from drinking too much water.
Plus, a lot of this is probably context dependent, and would make more sense if I had time to dig for examples. You might operate in a different field, you have a different personality and innate levels of confidence, you’re interacting with different experts, and what works for me quite possibly won’t work for you. That’s fine.
And I know it sounds nice to say “just ask them”, but many experts are not responsive to tags because they’re overwhelmed with notifications, and that’s especially true about a subject like this where it isn’t really productive. If someone tagged me asking that question, I would just delete the withdrawls, because they are clearly causing confusion. That’s the whole point of my first comment. It’s best to just remove them so they can’t be there to give extraneous information.
We’re all constrained by limited information and time, so it’s important to streamline actions to minimize confusion and the potential to give incorrect information/identifications. That makes it difficult to have discussions and try to get everything exactly right 100% of the time, but I don’t think is even really a goal we should have. There is an expected rate of error, and although it is important to keep it low it is impossible to make it be zero. It’s all about balance. That’s particularly true in a case like this where the false appearance of disagreement would be a one-time issue that doesn’t recur and thus does not represent a true chance of error, just a chance of someone knowing a correct ID but not submitting it (which happens by the thousands every day for various reasons irrelevant to this issue, as mentioned above). Backing out and staying silent makes a lot of sense given those situations, or at least it does for me in the situations I have been in (and if it doesn’t work for you, then don’t do it lol). I just don’t think anyone really has the time to go through and debate every minor point of confusion, especially when nothing explicit has been said.
I can keep my mouth closed but my ears open on an issue until I figure it out eventually, and I don’t think that’s at all a poor choice. It’s just that it would be nice if I didn’t have to back off of identifying things until I reach that point when it turns out the whole problem was unnecessary confusion rather than a genuine issue.
It’s definitely happened to me to accidentally make a very wrong ID because of misclicking. I didn’t delete those IDs (I didn’t know that was possible until I read this thread) but that sounds like a good idea, since it’s obviously a mistake and not just a case of identifying intentionally but incorrectly. It seems to happen to other people a lot too, I’ve seen people get similar names mixed up in very obvious ways, like trying to ID an animal but IDing it as a plant instead. I don’t blame people for that, maybe they’re tired or using a small screen or something.
The situation in the first post sounds dicey for sure. My one suggestion is maybe tagging that person in the comments or messaging them. I’m sure I miss notifications sometimes, so hopefully it’s not deliberate. That’s the charitable interpretation, though it could be someone who cares about the leaderboards and/or is way too confident in their own “expertise”. :(
Why don’t you mark it “as good as can be” after 5 ids?
1 Like