Same. Unless it is a seriously underobserved taxon such as Tubificid worms.
Yes. Although my aversion to them is only on iNaturalist; I don’t mind the sight of them if they aren’t cluttering up my identify tab. I try to remember that some people are just such newbies to nature that they honestly don’t know the difference, but it seems like such a basic distinction to me – even in a place where I have never been and don’t know the flora, I can still tell when several of the same thing are growing evenly spaced and neatly trimmed along a foundation.
On any given day, I only stop to photograph a small portion of what I see. I have my notepad and pencil out, recording vegetation patterns (“The canopy layer was…”), phenology, and animal sightings, and I don’t really like to interrupt this stream of consciousness to take pictures unless something particularly catches my interest. I have read enough nature writing and scientific papers to know that pictures are not the be-all-end-all.
My what-to-post bias includes a preference for exotic (to me) locales. In the other thread about the Annual iNaturalist Survey, there was extensive discussion about the overrepresentation of the United States. I find that when I am traveling in those underrepresented countries, I am more inclined to photograph and post more of what I see, and also more motivated to go on field days in the first place.
Conversely, when I look at observations in my hometown, I get a sense of what not to post by seeing what has already been observed the most.