Observation date: August 19, 2022
Submitted by: dawittrock2231
Specimen type: Photograph
Observation notes: Near a floodlight on my deck. I don't know what to make of IDs on iNaturalist. It certainly has a good algorithm, at least for getting in the ball park and is very good for some moths. The IDs however, are sometimes kind of sketchy, it depends on who looks at it and I don't know enough people there to be able to know who is an expert and who isn't. BG has some problems too, but, in general, I think it is better regulated and more trustworthy.
Status: Resident
Verified by: Ilona L.
Verified date: August 21, 2022
Coordinator notes: https://www.inaturalist.org/blog/69193-new-computer-vision-model -- This recent article on iNat gives some insight into the sometimes iffy IDs. There simply are yet not enough good photos of a species to identify some postings. My understanding is that to be at least reasonably accurate they need at least 100 verifiable/research grade photos of a species. I usually check the profile page of those people identifying my postings which should give one some idea of their expertise (or lack of it sometimes) I've had only a few minor problems with some overly-eager newbies but I have managed to catch these and at times point out the reason for my ID. There is also a list of top identifiers on each posting (if there are any, that is). For example, the moth you posted above has 12 top identifiers listed. Look down the right side of the page to see the list. If you are using a smaller device, I'm not sure what the display looks like. I'm using a large desktop computer. Many times, curators do not have any info on their profile page but they usually have an enormously large number of IDs and mostly not that many postings listed on their profile page. And yes, BG is better regulated -- probably helps that there aren't so many people posting.
