ophrys's picture


Firstly, let me just make it clear that there is nothing personal in what I am saying here!

I just wonder whether it is time to have a look at the position of experts on iSpot? Some categories, like Invertebrates and Plants, have a number of experts who regularly confirm IDs and are among the top experts in their fields...fantastic! However, in the Birds category, for one, I do think that there is a lack of regularly contributing, genuine expertise. It has recently come to light in a thread...


...that some experts were created to get iSpot up and running, perhaps, without necessarily having genuine expertise. That can lead to the situation where a bad misidentification is made by an expert and remains on the system, because only another expert can really override another. In the ID above, six are voting against three, but the less popular misidentification wins. There was also a Garden Warbler, not too long ago, misidentified as a Reed Warbler...another pretty basic error by an expert.

I repeat that there is nothing personal in any of this, but I do think that the credibility of iSpot is undermined as a result of such misidentifications. Perhaps it is time to have a look at how expertise is managed?




Refugee's picture

An answer?

Expert IDs could have a "re-visit" or "query" request button added that appears when the alternate IDs start to build up so that we can get the ID looked at again by an expert. It would have to be based in the number of users and not there expert levels.


Fenwickfield's picture

I understand

I truly understand your frustration as I have noticed this on plants when experts and the ones with the Knowledgeable badge have been wrong and still have the id on as correct when it is not.I have given up becoming annoyed with this as there is nothing I can do but I think your suggestion would be excellent as even expert's make mistakes.I appreciate the work they put in but we all make mistakes.


Dioctria's picture

Withdraw revisions without removing them?

I think part of the problem is that even when an expert recognises their mistake there is no way to withdraw the identification as it is (quite rightly) required to be kept as part of the discussion that led to a (hopefully!) correct ID. This contrasts sharply with those who 'agree' who can move their agreements around at will.

The original posters of revisions can agree with a later revision to add weight to that of course, but might not feel sufficiently confident in that ID to do so, even if they are now convinced that their original ID is incorrect.

Perhaps we need some kind of halfway house for the posters of revisions (experts and mortals).

Would it be possible to implement an option whereby they can change their mind about an ID, and therefore withdraw the weight of their expertise from the likely ID calculation, but have it remain in the revision list as a 'withdrawn revision'? Perhaps their expert badge or rating icons could be greyed out and the revision also flagged in some other way to indicate this?


MrG's picture

Confidence Level

The 'expert' in the example has posted only with a confidence of "It might be this". I would suggest that should be overruled by someone who posts a suggestion with a higher level of confidence even if their expertise rating is less. Of course, this raises the old question of whether agreeing with someone implies certainty or only agreeing at the same level of confidence e.g. I agree it might be this.