Users disrupting species identifications

Why remove the obs? If you are unhappy with your IDs, work back thru your obs and withdraw where you need to.


For me, it’s a lot to go through and scrap, and I’m sure none of it was that remarkable. That, and doing it 200+ times would, to be quite honest, be a bit discouraging for me personally. That’s on me.

1 Like

For what it’s worth, you’re not alone in having excessively clicked “Agree” before you knew how the community feels about it. I think starting to use iNat is easy, but pretty much everyone makes mistakes. That one is among the most common. If you only did this 200 times, you figured it out quicker than I did. :smiling_face:


You can always tick “Yes” under “Based on the evidence, can the Community Taxon still be confirmed or improved?” in the DQA section.

This will bump the observation back to “Needs ID”.


I don’t see the problem with this. It seems like you are making at least a cursory effort to independently confirm the ID, or at least that’s what I get from “that looks right to me”. Everyone who IDs is going to have different levels of expertise, and as long as you’re not blindly agreeing, then you’ve gone to the effort of obtaining some of that knowledge and experience.

On the other hand, be wary of blindly agreeing on others’ observations. I find that one of the most frustrating aspects of the site. Especially if you have one expert ID and an agreeing one. You want the ID to stand, but still needing confirmation. There’s no way of doing that through the current system until you get that second expert ID. You can only disagree and throw out the ID altogether (by going with a less specific ID)

I think it’s even more acceptable if it’s your own observation. It’s up to you whether you want to make it go RG on the strength of your knowledge (or lack of), or if you think you want it to stay “needs ID” and have another expert ID it.

Although as someone who’s reasonably knowledgeable, I cringe a bit when I make an uncertain ID, and comment to that effect (or even worse a suggestion in the comments without an ID), and the observer makes an agreeing ID that you know they couldn’t have researched in that amount of time.

Short version - Don’t delete your observations. Maybe just go back and review, and withdraw any IDs that you feel were made without proper confirmation (or don’t, whatever :).


I agree… no need to go through those observations if you made those agreements ind good faith at the time and feel it would discourage you now. We all learn and grow as IDers here and if you can make more informed desicions on when to agree and when to leave it with other identifiers going forward I think that is totally fine.



isn’t quite correct. Other users have listed one of the solutions to this situation above which is to

1 Like

Yeah, that’s fair enough, and thanks for the tip. I do try to avoid making DQA changes like that so I don’t forget and wonder why my obs won’t go RG down the track. I always took that particular checkbox to mean if there was a subspecies ID that should be possible to determine (or to counteract someone ticking the “No” checkbox), rather than just a general “this shouldn’t be RG yet”

Yes, those situations (where a subspecies ID might still be relevant/possible and counteracting “No” votes) are also good uses of the option. I don’t know of any “official” guidance that says that box should only be ticked in certain situations though - I think it has been left up to the users to use as they see fit (though happy to see contrary evidence!)

I also agree that it can be hard to keep track of, so I use it sparingly.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.