- Explore community
I have posted a few observations where (not surprisingly, either due to photo quality or complexity of identification), no positive identification is ever added.
In other forum topics, the issues around available expertise, incorrect identifications, and the way the "reputation" system works have been raised: I think that they all point to one fact. When someone posts an observation, what they need is what the social scientists nowadays call "closure".
What would be good to see, for those observations where no positive identification is offered/possible, a reviewer could - eventually - add (possibly from a pick-list, for speed), a reason, such as "key features not visible", or "require specimens for positive identification".