perhaps this should be pictured in the annual personal reports, would be interesting for me how I performed. I also would appreciate how often I have made a false ID, just to recollect where I should improve knowledge.
4 Likes
Thanks, Marina! Only 68% supporting. Lower than I thought I remembered.
1 Like
Fair enough. I hadnt thought of that.
1 Like
Mine splits into neat thirds. But that also reflects how we prefer to ID on iNat.
I do a lot of Unknowns - so my Leading might be as blunt as Fungi or Aves.
I also do disambiguation, so the Supporting is trying to pull a deadlock out of Plantae. Or to force iNat to show the var or ssp.
I donāt ever work thru a taxon for errors. Not my skill set!
But the low supporting doesnāt equal - I am a better identifier. I am flat out NOT.
7 Likes
This link works great! Diagram is very useful!
1 Like
Two more recent threads have highlighted a good reason for making āextraā supporting identifications. If a person deletes their account, all their identifications disappear! This throws many observations back to āNeeds ID.ā So please do āagreeā with identifications on Research Grade observations if you happen to be looking at the observation anyway and you can recognize the organism.
And please donāt delete your account.
13 Likes
Yesterday, I uploaded a mediocre digisciope of a Snowy Owl (Bubo scandiacus). This morning, less then 24 hours later, it has ELEVEN supporting ids!
My question for those who add supporting ids to observations like this that are very much already research grade; why do you feel it is necessary to add more ids past the first few? Iām genuinely curious!
3 Likes
Maybe thereās more interest in this species, or perhaps itās the Snowy Owl referenced to in this topic: Newsworthy Observations?
We had a long topic on this recently that Iāll try to find: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/why-do-some-observation-receive-plenty-of-agreeing-ids/37287/
2 Likes
Nah, just a mediocre picture of mine form the New Hampshire coast, where they arenāt unusual.
3 Likes
Agreeing can be the iNaturalist equivalent of Facebookās āLikeā feature. No harm done.
6 Likes
It looks like that species is a habitually popular one. Perhaps it is easy to identify and students are taught to pick species they are sure of to begin using iNaturalist. Perhaps it is just a striking bird and people include it in their species to pop up whenever it is observed.
6 Likes
Bird photos routinely get numerous IDs. Lots of bird IDers out there. I suppose if they take a few seconds to look at your record, why not put another agreeing ID on it? A lot of bird pic IDs I get are from fellow birders who I know personally.
8 Likes
I think this is what it is for at least some people. Itās almost like getting credit for the work youāre putting in, even if that work is just looking at it for a few seconds.
sometimes people have Aves in their identification view and set to also see observations with research grade as well. In that view they can either click the agree button or the checkbox to revise the observation and make it disappear from the list.
2 Likes
I consider birds as the primary gateway taxon for people getting into nature, so itās not surprising that bird records attract more eyeballs and therefore more agreeing IDs.
5 Likes
The website pretty much asks for it. So I pull up this owl observation and I see itās really the owl I was expecting. Thereās a button that says āAgreeā. Yep, mash the button.
3 Likes
@jlayman Itās not just that species. Itās all owls. I wondered as much since the little friend I see mornings and evenings in my own garden, a Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl (Glaucidium brasilianum), I recalled being seconded very quickly. (No additional identifications but my photos were even more mediocre than yours, plus observations here just do not get the same attention as in the USA.)
2 Likes
Man, Iād kill for a photo op with a Snowy Owl. OK, not kill, but thatās a bird Iād love to see.
Probably why you have so many agreeing IDs.
2 Likes
As long as the IDs are correct, why does it matter?
2 Likes