foreword
This workflow is my personal guideline. I'll try to stick to it when proceeding to an individual identification activity. I consider correct sharing as I believe consistency is an important aspect to guarantee the quality of iNat IDs
10. pictures in the observation allow to identify every key feature of the taxa whose ID you want to add: Yes->20 No->40
20. you are aware of other species who cannot be visually distinguished from the above taxa Yes->21 No->25
21.the information about visual identity apply to the same Country as the obs Yes->32No->25
25. you are aware of exceptions in visual appearance which could bring with confusion with a different species Yes->32No->39
32. the estimated incidence of error is greater than 10% OR percentage unknown Yes->33No->39
33. note the ambiguity through a Holding Bin
continue ->50
38. Add taxa as ID, mention in comment the key feature and add link to literature ->50
39. Add taxa as ID mention in comment the key feature and add link to literature in ID warning about potential alternative ->50
40. the picture, as viewed in the original version, has at least one key featurewhich could be seen in the picture but is not visible instead? Yes->41No->42
41. abstain from ID ♦
42. Add taxa as ID, mention in comment the key feature and add link to literature ->50
50. can you detect at least one key features which of the current Community ID not compatible with the picture set of the observation? Yes->51 No->♦
51. Trigger review
possibly mention in comment the potential taxa for an ID ♦
the following setcions are recommended:
Section name | Contents |
---|---|
references to literature | list of internet link to resources, such as web pages or pdf documents, of reputable sources of information used in the identification process. In case it is feasible, subdivide by Taxa (e.g. species) |
links to observations | links to individual observation considered valuable and informative both for the pictures of the observation and the contents of the comments section |
references to iNat users | list of users who might support in troubleshooting an ID. Obviously partial, but a starting point anyway |
item | description |
---|---|
♦ | End of flow. |
key feature | a visible feature which is not shared by different species when associated to other key features or visual clues |
same as the previous one, with the following variation:
goal of this post is adding commentary to the structure of the workflow.
(still work in progress)