I’ve just passed 1K identifications and my experience of doing ID’s has changed dramatically. At first, it was, “Oh, I know that one!” and it was all very simple and straightforward. Now, things end up in a few categories:
I’m blind to everything except plants.
I don’t know enough about this and I’m not touching it!
I might be able to figure it out, but I’m not interested enough in that genus or species to put in the effort, or not for the quality of documentation that’s provided.
I’ll offer a thought or suggestion in a comment, but not try to change the ID.
Something is WRONG on the Internet and I must CORRECT it! This process often takes an hour per observation because I need to make sure I’m not the one who is wrong, and to carefully document why I think differently!
I do withdraw my IDs when someone comes along with either a convincing argument, or the appearance of real knowledge. I try not to be an ass, but I probably come across as a know-it-all. My internal sense is more like I’m just trying as hard as I can despite my lack of formal training. I learned most of what I know by sticking my neck out and then admitting when I’m wrong. Strunk and White says, “It’s better to be boldly wrong than timidly right” and while that’s not always true, it’s certainly friends with brevity.
I also spend maybe a quarter of my iNat time going down rabbit holes related to data quality. I thought that we might have an invasive hybrid Holly. We don’t, but I learned a lot in the process of posting on the forum, then opening a taxon flag. I think I fixed a data condition with a different hybrid, Ilex x attenuata, which took hours and I learned a bunch from that too, but I’m still uncertain about whether the apparently very rare wild hybrids of Ilex opaca and Ilex cassine deserve to be location obscured and how to weigh that against figuring out which observations are of popular nursery plants. Location is a huge help in determining that something was planted (in a row in front of the statehouse) or grew there naturally (in the middle of a large natural area).
I’m starting to feel like I know something about local hollies (dangerous!). I didn’t even know I liked Hollies! I’m not sure I do, but I apparently find identifying their hybrids very interesting?
How has your experience of identifying things changed over time? Have you learned anything about yourself in the process? Is there a more mature attitude that I should be striving toward?
that there are never enough identifiers and even the really easily identifiable species have dozens or even hundreds of observations that have been untouched for years.
that when you focus on one group or even one family or genus, you become really familiar with the different species to the point where you instantly recognise them, even if you’ve never seen the species in real life.
that you shouldn’t get too bold and always remember that you can’t know everything. Especially when you start IDing observations further away from the area you know really well, you should always remember that similar species occur there, that you have never even heard about! It’s a problem I see often with identifiers who only have species X in their home country, and then start identifying observations of the same genus in other countries, completely disregarding the fact that in those countries there are also, or only, species Y and Z. Yes, they look the same, but they’re simply not the same species.
I feel so heard! I’ve experienced a lot of these myself, although my experience has been slightly different as I really only ID one family now (Tarantulas). I’ve learned SO much since I started ID’ing about a year ago, so here’s a rough list in no particular order:
There are so many extremely easily identifiable records that have become buried and never become research grade. For this, the sort by “random” on the identify page is great. Even though it gets tedious, I do feel like I’m making a difference, however small, when identifying years-old records of extremely common (and easy to definitively ID) species.
Becoming more familiar with the geography and regions of places I’ve never been to simply because of the Tarantulas they have there, as well as which regions and countries have the least research published about their endemic tarantulas. Even places I’ve been to or lived in I feel like I understand better having identified observations from there.
I’ve become fascinated with the world of undescribed species and have started keeping track of the more commonly observed ones. I’ve also seen multiple taxonomic changes and formerly undescribed species finally get names, which is so cool! I feel like I’m witnessing history!
While I’ve made my fair share of mistakes, being on iNaturalist has taught me so much more about tarantulas than any article, book, or video ever has! Beyond just becoming familiar with the species and subfamilies and whatnot, I also feel like I’ve learned a lot about the people, both scientists and enthusiasts that contribute to our knowledge about this incredible family of creatures! It almost feels like a little community, which I love.
I’m at 4747 and usually spend about half an hour IDing while cooking breakfast and lunch. Today being Saturday, I cooked today’s breakfast and lunch yesterday and IDed in the afternoon. I didn’t go to church because of snow.
Many months ago I found an observation IDed as bird with a note “Merlin couldn’t ID”. I listened and recognized it as a frog I heard while visiting Puerto Rico. IIRR it was in Hawaii, and I can confidently ID it to species in Hawaii and Florida. I’ve also seen a bimodal observation of a coquí. In Puerto Rico itself, though, there are several species of Eleutherodactylus including the upland coquí, which I’ve read sounds similar to the common coquí which I heard in San Juan, which is near sea level. So trying to tell them apart there is too hard for me.
The deer here is the white-tail, which is in the same genus as the mule deer. I can usually tell them apart if I see the antlers or the tail, and sometimes if I see the ears, but with just footprints or bones I’m lost.
I often note when identifying a lep as a geometrid that it might be a noctuid; both have reduced prolegs, but the noctuids with reduced prolegs have one pair more than the geometrids and are generally thicker. Looking at the adults, they’re just leps to me.
I stumbled into ID’ing one group I was interested in, and I’m at around 10,000 IDs for it now, but it took me a while to find the formal literature to back up my IDs. I’ve found it useful to concentrate my efforts on one taxon. I’m almost down to just the ongoing observation trickle for that group, but with a few species yet to learn and about 3,000 observations to annotate for flowers and fruit. After that, I’ll look for a new, presumably related, taxon. I expect I’ll find it easier to pick up the specifics the next time around.
I’m coming up on 29k IDs. Here’s some advice that I’d offer:
Don’t be afraid to ask for clarification as to how someone reached an ID. This can be helpful for learning new species as well as making sure the identifier has good reasons for their ID.
If you find an ID that seems suspect, it can be helpful to look at the person’s profile. This certainly isn’t foolproof, but if it’s from an account with 14 observations, it’s likely a new user who just went with whatever suggested ID felt right to them. If the account is run by someone who did their PhD thesis on that specific genus, it’s likely that they know something you don’t.
It never hurts to tag one or more of the top identifiers of a certain group if you’re stuck. Most prolific iNat users are very friendly and happy to help. It’s good to check to make sure they are actually IDing that taxon in your area though. Look for the top IDer’s in South Carolina, otherwise you may end up with someone only familiar with Asian species of a particular genus.
You don’t have to leave a justification for every ID you leave. It will take way longer to ID stuff if you do. I’ll give my reasoning if someone asks, or sometimes when I’m disagreeing with previous IDs if it seems warranted.
Be open to being wrong, especially if you’re not especially familiar with a certain taxon.
As an amateur with no formal training, I can relate to all the points. I just passed 11K identifications and it has been a journey.
I consider myself lucky to have had really patient and helpful members of the community as mentors. Until I started corresponding with them through comments and messages, I followed the iNat recommended process of validating CV suggestions through Compare. It got me to a lot of incorrect IDs. I appreciate corrections but I still hate being wrong.
I am now well past the stage where I need to google every term in messages and keys. I know now where the keys are and what on-line resources I can consult when I don’t have the books.
I know who the experts are (a lot of them, not everyone) and what’s their preferred communication channel and style.
I started with birds and local flora. Hats off to generalists, I found that’s not for me. Interest in grasses and mosses started as photography challenge and I got sucked in. These days I identify birds, grasses and mosses and not much else.
The more I learn, the more grasses I identify to taxa and more mosses only to genus or family.
My attitude changed, too. I stopped worrying about resolving observations, identifying all and correcting IDs from overconfident CV suggestions. I still correct way off IDs but my focus is to find underrepresented taxa in the field and in other peoples’ observations.
The highlight of the past couple of years has been meeting people in person and participating in identification clean-ups that were prompted by new developments.
I also enjoy noticing how people improve their photography and identification skills.
I know that works for some. But I prefer - sort by Date Observed and Ascending. That way I clear the ones that missed their turn when they were fresh. And I can retrieve uploaded the same picture as multiple obs because … bad internet ? Or ‘one’ obs with the field marks split across MANY obs - Please combine
I am a generalist - so I aim to move disagreements / Unknown / broad IDs to their / your filters.
Most of my bookmarked URLs come from forum posts. Tweaked to suit me. Also from Pre-Maverick and Placeholder projects. And … somebody has to work thru the tired residue from GSB and CNC - for CNC25 I have cleared the Western Cape - next batch is South Africa which I will skim. So I can finally get to Rest of Africa - sad to see those optimistic obs STILL languishing in Unknowns as CNC26 looms ahead of us !
Find your niche. We need an identifier working in every neglected corner.
I still don’t fully understand how to deal with duplicate observations. Very often, users don’t respond to requests to delete duplicates.
I also feel a bit sad when I see participants of the same bioblitz or project uploading very low-quality photos that cannot be identified at all, and again, they don’t react to comments or requests.
There is also a group of what I personally call “mass identifiers” people who add third or fourth confirming IDs to almost everything. I’m not talking about experts who focus on a specific taxonomic group, but rather about indiscriminate agreement across many taxa.
I sometimes feel frustrated when I see this kind of mass-clicking. It makes me feel as if my identification work was done in vain, as if I wasted time that could have been spent identifying observations where no experts are present. It feels like the effort is distributed inefficiently.
So much in this thread already that resonates strongly with me.
For quick context, (1) I’m a generalist identifier with >25k IDs and (2) all of the following are purely from my own perspective, not intended to argue that everyone should do/feel the same.
Learning broad groups (families, genera) has been incredibly rewarding. It’s nice to have some capacity to narrow coarsely ID’d observations–even in regions I know little about–without overreaching too far beyond my own capability. Bonus, it’s also allowed me to learn a lot more because I then benefit from the actual expertise that comes along after me!
I don’t do it on absolutely everything, but I’m a big advocate for leaving comments. Even little things like “based on the leaf shape” or, probably my most commented phrase, “just adding a broad ID to hopefully help other identifiers find this observation more easily” are great. I find comments help in sidestepping potential conflicts, inspiring others who ID the observation after me to add more info (which I can then learn from also), and support observers who want to engage more in the process. Certainly does slow/interrupt the process though, hahaha.
Although I often get frustrated by the same things as everyone (e.g., a million photos of the same weed from a class project, blurry/otherwise poor evidence), I’ve found it valuable to practice patience and positive engagement. I’m an ecologist by career, so I often have to remind myself that things that are second nature to me are completely foreign to a lot of observers. Even things like the importance of clear images can seem unnecessary to someone unfamiliar with the sheer diversity of species that actually exist. “C’mon, it’s obvious it’s a seagull even from this picture” seems like a fair argument from a certain perspective, but only if the observer isn’t aware that there’s more than one type of gull–let alone that there are more than 5 species in the area with nearly the same colors!
I don’t think we’re allowed to do much about this. Everyone has a different definitions of what constitutes a duplicate and some are very vocal about the iNat users’ right to do pretty much whatever they want.
If it looks as though the user in question is simply unaware that multiple photos can be grouped in a single observation, you can try adding a comment pointing out iNat’s capability in this regard, but be prepared for your comment to go unseen or ignored. But you never know, there could be the odd person who will take the comment to heart and change how they submit observations. It’s not 100% hopeless.
This is one that has me baffled as well - especially when I see it done by familiar users who appear to otherwise know what they are doing. It seems especially baffling when this happens with ancient observations that went RG years ago, but I guess if folks are using the “random” sorting, this is what will happen. I get a lot of notifications for this when these folks agree on observations where I’ve only added an annotation. There are undoubtedly many more of these happening where I have added an ID (in the distant past) - and those notifications get suppressed. I’ve seen folks adding 8th/9th identifications. It’s not even unusual.
Clearly you’re feeling frustration with the behavior of others as you ID. I hear you, but what you are doing is important and adds materially to the value of iNaturalist. Just keep doing the part that’s fun and interesting, and try to let the stuff you can’t control wash by. And keep in mind that there are folks out there who have stories we don’t know. I have one autistic friend who can’t see that their photos are indecipherable to others but they find immense satisfaction in posting, even if they aren’t identified, and I cherish that.
If just 1% of observers identified 100 observations in a day, we would reduce the number of IDs of Needs ID observations by a good amount (10-20%). Unfortunately, there are not nearly enough identifiers on Inat. Whether it be due to a knowledge gap, unwillingness, or unfamiliarity—many observers still choose not to identify.
Agreed on the inefficiency, and I wish such people would spend less time agreeing and more time sorting through observations that have been waiting years for an ID! However, it’s their time they’re wasting. And I guess it’s not really a waste if they enjoy it.
I don’t think we should feel like those third or fourth or upwards ID’s diminish the value of our first or second ID in getting it to RG in the first place, because some people only agree in cases where it’s already identified, or do so for a much wider number of species than they would have felt bold enough to put the first ID on. I don’t really “get” it myself, but I think there are people who have fun agreeing to things (hopefully only that they do think they know) but who really, really don’t like being corrected, or at least not being corrected when they were the only one to speak up. There is a sort of social safety in numbers aspect to only agreeing on things that already have a consensus, and I think that’s what we’re seeing.
Separately, I think some people are using it as a sort of “like button” to leave a record that they saw and appreciated a neat observation - this is why a great photo of something rare wracks up many more identifications compared to an equally identifiable photo of something boring. As long as they can actually identify it there’s nothing wrong with doing that. I figure they weren’t in identifying mode at the moment, and just saw something exciting while browsing RG observations.
I do kind of hope no one is spending hours adding superfluous ID’s in the belief that they’re making a difference, but if they’re doing it for enjoyment I think it’s harmless, and doesn’t detract from what we do.
I don’t consider myself an identifier, but apparently I’m at 6000 something? I guess I learned that times does fly a bit when you’re enjoying yourself.
It’s probably harmless in most cases, but there are occasions when I’ve had trouble correcting an ID because the observer made an incorrect initial ID, and then several people quickly agreed before I could make the correction. Overturning the initial incorrect ID isn’t so bad, especially since most observers will respond and amend/withdraw their ID. It’s the pile-ons that are the problem. They are often “drive-by” IDers who don’t seem to notice the notifications of disagreements and don’t read the explanations of why the original ID was incorrect. I have only so many other experts/henchmen I can tag to help steer an ID in the right direction. If even 2 people leave their incorrect ID in place, I may never get the ID back on track.
Oh yeah, I run into that too. I was only referring to correct ID’s of already research grade observations as “harmless.” If they’re incorrect at RG and then more people pile on. . . Very frustrating!
Just topped 12K this a.m., though less than a full year using iNat. How did that happen?!?!?! It is amazing to realize how much I have learned and gotten comfortable with.
I agree with the virtually all of the above. I think there are a number of reasons that people may add ID #3, 4, 5, 6…. to an observation, most of which have already been shared.
I would like to add that on the iNat Zoom training on Identifying, it was shared that adding a 3rd confirming ID (and maaaaybe a 4th) can actually be a good thing in that if there are three IDs and one of the people passes away or otherwise their account is permanently closed, the observation can remain at RG, even though one of the IDs has been removed with the closing of the account. (It was also noted that any more than that are not needed, and people were encouraged to ID other observations instead, if this is already the case on a partic. observation they were looking at)
I enjoy doing IDs (I’m a generalist), despite the frequency of tiny dots in the sky, etc. It’s one of the first things I do in the morning and last things in the evening and mostly find it really relaxing (in a kind of weird way )
)