Identifications
Anyone else finding that submissions that once would have sat for months get identified within a few hours? Not sure if this is just an increase in the number of users, or a sign that the new identification tool is quite effective.
In any case, thank you to everyone who keeps me honest.
@silversea_starsong @psyllidhipster @borisb @treegrow @nathantaylor7583 @bbunny @cedric_lee @maractwin @c_michael_hogan @lisa_bennett @john8 @keirmorse @pliffgrieff @paloma @coreyjlange @invertzoo @gcsnelling @winny88 @pgugger @gregpauly @charlie @villu @alice_abela @cosmiccat @rjadams55 @tigerbb @kevinhintsa @kimssight @kschnei @biohexx1 @sea-kangaroo @lynnwatson @grnleaf
Comments
I don't necessarily know if observations are getting identified quicker, but I am grateful that anyone takes a look at mine and identifies to any level. Sometimes I'm at a loss, so to those who have expertise, and there are waaaay too many to name, thank you! @finatic @beartracker @nlblock @tiskolin @slsfirefight @alice_abela @invertzoo @kestrel @robberfly @matty @matthew_salkiewicz
I agree with @biohexx1 that I am grateful for all the help with IDs that people provide to me.
Personally, I have been trying to provide more identifications, even if they are at a high level. I've found that having something simply marked as "plants" will help get an ID from a knowledgeable user whereas leaving it without any ID at all will cause it to sit.
Also, @dominic and @treegrow , much thanks!
Oh yeah, of course, @gregpauly !
I tell everyone when I do presentations on my own work ( Butterfly Conservation )that since I discovered it three years ago, I exploit iNaturalists Daily for my Own education. Sure, I mainly focus on helping folks with Lepidoptera, but I've learned to bravely step up to other interests: lichens, plants, dragonflies. I find the threads of comments Fantastic: two steps forward, one back.
I wish folks would be a bit braver - I've met many who " won't post unless they know it." Gosh, I kinda have the opposite impulse, "What is this?" Someone in this amazing community will know and their passion, their...dopamine...will excite another.
Go be curious. Go be wrong. We've got your back. 👍
PS: " Identification tool?" No, I'm old school: field guides pulled down from a shelf each time...
I've noticed that too :) When I started trying to do more IDs I noticed there were around 107,000 'unknown' observations, and now there are around 84,000. I keep seeing the same dedicated names popping up over and over too. It's so wonderful to see the number of observations growing and patterns of distributions appearing.
Yeah "Unknown" submissions are a thankless job. The only time I have ever seen people actually get mad over iNaturalist was when I put an ID on an old submission which was "Unknown." People are sure they did it right, and something I did messed up their perfect observation.
We just need to enforce the social norm that all submissions will get an ID unless they are too blurry or too strange for anyone to figure out. Once people get used to that fact I doubt it will be a problem anymore. New users are less likely to freak out than existing ones who thought they were doing it right all this time.
Sometimes just putting a little note to the user on the observation gets them to check it and update it.
why would someone complain about coarse ID when you retained the placeholder? Sounds like they don't understand how the ID system works. Too bad. If they don't want ID help they should turn on 'retain control over ID'... does that preserve a placeholder?
I do unknowns to a coarse level pretty often, never had an issue.
But yeah... IDs definitely come faster now for a lot of taxa and people also go through and ID some of my old ones, which is awesome. I try to keep up adding lots of ID for Vermont and southern California plants, though i've been busy with new baby and new job so have done a bit less lately :)
I was ecstatic to be introduced to iNat recently when I joined a project through the Natural History Museum of Utah. This is a brilliant platform in so many ways, and I feel honored to be working among such knowledgeable people. I love giving IDs whenever I can and am learning more every day! Thank you all!
@kueda @loarie @greglasley @kevinhintsa @sambiology @gcwarbler
Adding a few people that have been very helpful with IDs for me. I'm sure there are many others but it's Monday morning and my brain isn't yet firing on all cylinders.
Recently I am delighted at how much faster my non-mollusk observations are getting IDed! That's great. And thank you to everyone concerned!
I recently have been going through hundreds of older observations of mollusks and trying to put better IDs in. That is quite rewarding.
But I do believe strongly that a general ID to phylum or class is always far better than no ID at all, because that observation will then show up in the feed of a few people who specialize in that phylum or class, and who may then be able to decide what the correct ID is at a more specific level.
I tend to stick my neck out fairly often on a species ID rather than holding back until I feel that I am absolutely sure (if that is ever possible when you are working from photographs rather than having the specimen in your hand). I figure that if I am wrong, someone will eventually challenge my ID.
I love the new ID tool. Where I was just ignoring agreements on easy IDs before as it took too much time, I can bust through huge numbers that already have the correct ID pretty fast now. That at least speeds up some of it.
I've also noticed that the finer the ID is, the more quickly it gets IDed to species. As such, I think it is a very important task to ID as fine as I can on the observations I come across. Though, I have become a bit hesitant recently to put down extremely coarse IDs (coarser than genus or family) on other people's observations for the following reason. When a specific ID does come along, I don't feel like I have the expertise or time to add my confirmation by agreeing (and making the observation research grade). However, if I leave the coarser ID, it implies that I disagree with the specific ID (as iNaturalist reminds me when I provide a coarse ID when a finer one is provided). Has anyone else come across this? If so how have you handled it?
I think it is no problem at all to put in a coarse ID if yours is the first ID or almost the first. Then when people put in a finer ID, your coarse ID does not imply that you disagree. I think it shows a clear progression towards a more specific ID.
However I think it is not suitable to put a coarse ID after a fine ID unless you do in fact disagree confidently with the fine ID.
I am LOVING the new ID tool (@kueda @loarie et.al.)! I use it all the time -- it's so great. I do filter it a bit though -- I've spent a lot of time JUST looking through regional observations (Texas, in my case). One thing that I've done is 'un click' the 'needs ID' observerations. This shows ALL observations -- I've found that there are many that have been ID'ed and agreed upon that aren't that species. I'm guilty of mis-ID'ing big big time (apologies to the scientific community!), so I've enjoyed going through observations that have already reached "research grade."
As Liam mentions, it's a great learning tool too -- I can find out where the different TX plants are found. The repetition of seeing the name is good for me too.
I've also played with the Identotron some too -- that's becoming more and more powerful as we get more observations. It's not the best for the 'unexplored' areas, but it's getting better and better.
Even for all of the observations that are mis-ID'ed, they don't sit that way forever -- people go back and re-examine observations. :) I have given a more coarse ID, but I ONLY do it with an accompanying comment and strong conviction. I kinda wish it was necessary to do this with a coarser ID -- like it would automatically pop up a comment section on why you choose the coarser ID...
i love the identotron too. my only complaint: i wish it would not use the smallest 'places' so readily. Sometimes a county has a full flora, but it zooms into a tiny park with like three plant observations making it necessary to zoom back to a wider view.
I do add a high level ID, sometimes even at the Kingdom level if there is on ID at all on an observation. The only time I provide a higher level ID of something with an ID is when I absolutely disagree with that ID, and I try to add a note when doing so.
When I first started using iNat and branching out into moths the best feeling I got was when @hkmoths would leave me an ID, even though many times it was at a higher then Genus level. It created a started point for me to do my own research into the ID. With something like moths starting can be very daunting but having any sort of guidance was nice.
Another thing that I will do is tag someone whom I know is good with a certain area. I do this on observations both mine and of other people. I think it helps to get IDs.
One thing that I wish more people would do, and that includes me, is when disagreeing with a posted ID is to leave a message as to why. That helps the person learn and hopefully not make the same mistake again. There are a few users out there that do this and I am grateful for that help on my observation. Obviously I made a mistake, but without knowing why someone is disagreeing and going with a very similar organism I haven't learned anything other then I was wrong.
Nice post @glmory
I am getting a lot of notifications from a lot of my past observations too lol. There's just too many of them and I don't have the time to see them all lol.
What is the new identification tool? Often I am the last to know about new developments dealing with just about everything so I guess I should get used to it. Still, it's not fun feeling stupid all the time.
Yeah, the keyboard shortcuts are what really makes the identify tool useful. Use arrows to go from one to the next, then use 'a' 'i' 'r' 'c' and 'z' for agree, identify, marked as reviewed, comment, and captive. It can get to be remarkably fast.
Be sure to use the filter as well -- you can modify what you ID by your expertise/interest or by region. I sure like Texas plants, but I don't know much about Canadian plants -- so I modify the ID tool with the filter. It's really quite nice.
I have really been enjoying iNat and the new tool. It is easy to go through and add id's even if only at a high level to "Life" and to species on easy ones I call "low hanging fruit". The value of iNat comes when we get to research grade. I am so grateful to this community to help me with my id's.
Just like a lot of new features on iNat, initially to me it looks difficult or useless but after using it a few times it seems indispensable.
I've noticed that when I add a coarse ID to something that was previously unknown that they seem to get ID'd to something finer MUCH more quickly than they used to, and I find that really satisfying. :-)
Add a Comment