This is interesting: we ID based on the photo and/or audio in the observation. Comments about field marks or call have not previously influenced our ID. We believe the observer; it’s just that we were trying to ID based on the evidence. But…if that same observer drew a picture of the bird they saw, which is permissible for ID on inat, and they included the field marks in the drawing–which made the organism identifiable–then we would ID it.
So describing the field marks in the comments seems like a similar inclusion of details. Describing a bird’s call seems the same–@kmforum gives the example of a Fish Crow, which is distinguishable from American Crow by call. The call can’t be included in a sketch, but it can be described in the comments.
So maybe we will rethink how we treat comments since they are part of the evidence.
Something to definitely think about, and a very good comment.
For the most part, I think it’s usually best to ID based on the photo and/or audio in the observation. Unfortunately, as I’m sure you’re aware, many excited, enthusiastic and well-meaning bird observers often state in the comments that they know they saw species x, when in actuality there are clues of which they’re unaware that point directly to species y.
I’ll still be contemplating your comment, though, and thank you very much for adding it.
I’ll add that an observer who is able to make an accurate field sketch with diagnostic features, and takes the time and effort to do so, is probably not new to bird ID (more often than not).
Comments on moth observations can be valuable in separating similar looking moths. I wish more people would use them, actually. I’m not very familiar with moths in the mountains, but elevation and other climactic data can be very useful. It’s not as important on the prairies.
Yeah, recently someone marked a whooping crane for example, and the photo was super unclear, like it could be quite a few things from the image. I did notice the location seemed to be set for a nearby refuge that I am familiar with - and does this time of year often have a couple whooping cranes among all the sandhills. So rather than disagree, I just commented to ask why they marked it as a whooping crane, if they could explain, as the image was poor. Their reply confirmed my suspicions re locations and visual features not captured in the photo well that definitely make it a whooping crane, so I then confirmed their ID. I’ll often use comments that way, to even ask for more info, if I see things that I think point to the person being correct in their observation despite the photo being poor.