A fair number of observers treat the “Agree” button as if it meant “Thanks for adding an ID” instead of “I’ve independently come to the same conclusion.” I propose that iNat start tracking which identifications are created by clicking the “Agree” button (if they aren’t already), and marking them on…

That’s been discussed. I’m sure it will show up as a feature request here at some point.

another interesting “agree behaviour” is when there are a number of refinements, and someone comes in and agrees to each one one after the other. First they agree to family, then to genus, then to species. When you point out to them that you can only make one ID, and that by agreeing to the species,…

This may be tangential, but… I didn’t realize I could ID things to genus or above in the beginning, thinking I had to know exact species or nothing at all, which fed into uploading unknowns or relying on AI (which I also misunderstood thinking it was to be relied upon as an expert [I discussed this…

[image] mira_l_b: I didn’t realize I could ID things to genus or above in the beginning, thinking I had to know exact species or nothing at all, which fed into uploading unknowns or relying on AI (which I also misunderstood thinking it was to be relied upon as an expert [I discussed this in one …

There is a third reason for a “blind” Agreement. As a user from iSpot with a reputation system, when we moved our data from iSpot to iNat a lot of our identifications changes because of the absence of a reputation system on iNat. So for instance, taking the genus Drimia that only three people on e…

I was about to vote for this Feature Request, until I read the responses, thought some more, and realized its not that simple. First, I see nothing particularly wrong with using the “Agree” button. I use it all the time when I’m doing IDs - if I’m convinced that the leading ID is correct, it’s a lo…

I also often use the higher level ID, when I want to get to the “Compare” button. Sometimes it is purely to because I have a blank (sorry, old age!) as to the species or genus name I am looking for, but I know the taxon at the fine level well.

This might seem tangential to the topic, but I interpret the topic to be how do we avoid or find ‘unsafe’ research grade observations. One thing that would be useful is if we could search/filter by the number of identifications that a research grade observation has - if it has only two (or less ;-) …

I do this fairly often as well. Sometimes I do it because it is faster than consulting other references to refresh my memory which species in a genus (e.g.) are found in a particular area.

Since this request has been sitting untouched for a while, and I’m the only one who voted for it, I figured I should edit it for clarity, in part prompted by a post where I explained the difference between agreements and independent identifications in a way that people seem to like.

Track and mark identifications made through "Agree?" buttons

Feature Requests

Topic		Replies	Views
Issue with users automatically agreeing to an identification General	63	8494	June 15, 2019
Add extra confirmation step when agreeing with IDs on own observations Feature Requests under-review	88	6523	September 4, 2025
Improve ID function and name of Agree buttons - a modest proposal (not!) Feature Requests web , mobile-app	51	3706	October 2, 2024
Remove ability for observers to agree with IDs on their own observations Feature Requests declined	80	1648	August 6, 2024
Changes to the Agree button/functionality and addition of Markdown in comments and ID Remarks News and Updates web	185	12734	September 21, 2020

Track and mark identifications made through "Agree?" buttons

Related topics