Matt Smith's picture

Observation Revisions & Comments

Just been looking at the site and in particular the "Current Feature - Confirm older entries ID". I've been scrolling through the Invertebrate section and one thing that I noticed is that there appears to be a reluctance to post an "Identification" unless a species is specified. There are quite a few Invert observations with no "ID", but a look at comments attached to the observation shows that there a quite a few that have been "identified" correctly, albeit to the limits of the photo. The ID has been "done", but no "ID" attached to the observation, even at the "I think it might be this" sort of level.

Could we not have some way of suggesting or encouraging people to post an "Identification", even if it is only something like "Plant-hopper nymph", so that a) beginners can learn from the ID's, just to get their eye in so to speak and b) so that people learn not everything can be ID'd from a photo.

Perhaps with Observations with no initial ID specified by the person posting, the site could say "Post an Identification" rather than "Post a Revision". Another way might be to add a further line to the "reliability" indicators along the lines of "full ID not possible from this photo".




Martin Harvey's picture

vague identifications

Thanks for the comments Matt. I entirely agree that it is both legitimate and useful to give 'vague' identifications to group level, and we do suggest that at various places on iSpot; perhaps it needs greater emphasis.

I also agree that "Add an alternative identification" would be better that our current "Add a revision", we'll get that altered.

If we can get the message across that vague IDs are okay I don't think we'd need the extra line in the reliablility indicators.


Entomologist and biological recorder