Naming observations
25 June 2010 - 12:16am — Matt Smith
Hi all
Can I again ask for the system to require any that any observations MUST have an identification attached to them when the observation is initially entered. There still seem to be quite a few observations with no initial ID that have comments from the person posting them saying "I think its xxxx". In some instances they are correct, but they are not getting the "credit" for this if someone else adds the ID later.
Part of the aim of this site is to help people improve their ID skills, so they really should be posting a proper ID with an observations, no matter how unsure they are about it.
I agree that it's a shame
I agree that it's a shame people are not getting the credit for IDs they have made. If there is a correct ID in the description or comments then I, and I think most people, add a comment to suggest the original poster adds a revision so we can agree with it. But it is easy to miss comments when looking through what can be significant numbers of postings, so even with the best intentions the original identifiers might not get their due.
Mandatory IDs would indeed be one way round this, but I wonder if it might put off the more tentative poster? The site would need to encourage the user to give the ID their best shot, but not to be embarrassed if that is just 'fly' or something equally broad.
This raises another question: How many IDs should a user agree with when revisions are of a narrowing type?
I.e.
1.Fly,
2.Syrphidae,
3.Volucella Inanis.
I have occasionally agreed with a wider existing ID when narrowing it down to a particular species so as to give that person the credit for what is a correct ID. However, if everyone does this and more people can recognise the wider level than the more specific one then that would end up as the likely ID!
It's a tricky one.
David