Respectful request

[Charlie Spencer]

Could we limit the number of confirmations to three?

If there's some question on the ID or additional information, sure, add it.  But once three people have agreed on an ID, additional agreement posts only bring resolved questions back to the top for members to wade through without adding much value.

Just a suggestion.  Obviously it isn't my site and I certainly don't make the rules.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Charlie Spencer

[lonestranger]

Agreed.

Absolutely.

Most definitely.

 

[Kevin]

4 hours ago, lonestranger said:

Agreed.

Absolutely.

Most definitely.

 

Hey! Now I can not agree with you!

[Connor Cochrane]

There should be an agree/disagree button. They would have unlimited uses, and allow people to quickly agree and disagree.

[Benjamin]

If someone responds with an ID, consensus should be assumed until someone disagrees, brings up an alternative ID, or can offer more insight on a particular species.

[Connor Cochrane]

6 minutes ago, Benjamin said:

If someone responds with an ID, consensus should be assumed until someone disagrees, brings up an alternative ID, or can offer more insight on a particular species.

The person asking the ID question might want to hear an opinion from multiple people.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Connor Cochrane

[Jefferson Shank]

We should have a setup like iNaturalist where you can select a species to suggest. Comments can be added to the suggestion. Also a click on the species will redirect you to the species page. (which could be eBird, All About Birds, etc) If you agree with someone else's identification, you can hit "Agree" and it will show that.

[Jefferson Shank]

 

The person asking the ID question might want to hear an opinion from multiple people.

That's how it is for me too...

[The Bird Nuts]

When I ask about a bird, I feel much better about the ID if at least two people agree.  I don't like it when only one person responds - it might mean that others aren't sure, so they don't say anything.  But, yes, I agree that lots of "agreed" comments without additional information after two or three agreements is unnecessary.

Edited May 22, 2020 by The Bird Nuts

[Connor Cochrane]

Just now, Jefferson Shank said:

We should have a setup like iNaturalist where you can select a species to suggest. Comments can be added to the suggestion. Also a click on the species will redirect you to the species page. (which could be eBird, All About Birds, etc) If you agree with someone else's identification, you can hit "Agree" and it will show that.

Only in a perfect world. Imagine all the coding that would have to happen, and changing around the whole forum.

[Jefferson Shank]

 

Only in a perfect world. Imagine all the coding that would have to happen, and changing around the whole forum.

Yea, I know all about it. Seriously! We have our own website for our business. A Lot of techy stuff goes into it! 

[Melierax]

2 minutes ago, Jefferson Shank said:

We should have a setup like iNaturalist where you can select a species to suggest. Comments can be added to the suggestion. Also a click on the species will redirect you to the species page. (which could be eBird, All About Birds, etc) If you agree with someone else's identification, you can hit "Agree" and it will show that.

Since this is a forum I don't think it should work like iNaturalist. If it did, there wouldn't be much point for Whatbird and everyone would just post on iNat.

 

I completely agree with the three or so confirmations. Sometimes one isn't enough and most of the time five is too many. 

[Connor Cochrane]

Also, old post's that have a confirmed ID shouldn't be brought back up for someone to say "agreed", even if there is maybe one reply with a few likes on it.. The only reason to bring old posts up should be if they never got an ID.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Connor Cochrane

[Bird Brain]

 

6 hours ago, Charlie Spencer said:

Could we limit the number of confirmations to three?

If there's some question on the ID or additional information, sure, add it.  But once three people have agreed on an ID, additional agreement posts only bring resolved questions back to the top for members to wade through without adding much value.

Just a suggestion.  Obviously it isn't my site and I certainly don't make the rules.

There are pros and cons to any system that is set up. I agree in principal with this suggestion, since we have had many threads brought back to the top when after a few (or several) days someone reads it and states simply "I agree". On the other hand we have had as many as five or six people agree on an ID and then have someone challenge the ID and after more discussion the consensus changes on the ID. As @Connor Cochrane stated above, "Only in a perfect world". If 3 or more people have agreed on an ID I don't add my 2 cents worth if I agree, but I will question it if I feel strongly enough that the ID might be wrong. That's just my take on it. I don't think a thread should be locked if 3 have agreed on it because we're all prone to mistakes.

[Melierax]

6 minutes ago, Bird Brain said:

 

There are pros and cons to any system that is set up. I agree in principal with this suggestion, since we have had many threads brought back to the top when after a few (or several) days someone reads it and states simply "I agree". On the other hand we have had as many as five or six people agree on an ID and then have someone challenge the ID and after more discussion the consensus changes on the ID. As @Connor Cochrane stated above, "Only in a perfect world". If 3 or more people have agreed on an ID I don't add my 2 cents worth if I agree, but I will question it if I feel strongly enough that the ID might be wrong. That's just my take on it. I don't think a thread should be locked if 3 have agreed on it because we're all prone to mistakes.

Yeah, I completely agree. I don't think threads should be locked either, I just think that as a general guide if there are already 3 agrees on something and you also agree, there's no need to put a 4th on there.

[lonestranger]

6 hours ago, lonestranger said:

Agreed.

Absolutely.

Most definitely.

 

While confirmation of a suggested ID is appreciated, I think how the confirmation is expressed is more helpful than how many members express agreement. Without pointing out field marks that led to the ID, comments like the ones above aren't all that helpful. I actually find it annoying when I see a bunch of new unread posts and the majority of them are threads I have already read but someone has come along and added one more Agree or similar comment to post, after post, after post, after post, after post, after post, after post, after post, after post, after post, after post, after post, after post, after post, after post, after post, after post, after post, after post. It's annoying when something is over done, isn't it.? I guess it's not just the number of confirmations to a post that we need to watch, but maybe we should also watch the number of threads we add those less than helpful Agree type comments to. Just tossing out another 2 cents worth.

Edited May 22, 2020 by lonestranger

[Charlie Spencer]

 

10 hours ago, Connor Cochrane said:

The person asking the ID question might want to hear an opinion from multiple people.

Agreed, and that's why I said three.  Like @The Bird Nuts, I also prefer having a couple of confirmations.  But do four or more add that much more confidence?

9 hours ago, Bird Brain said:

 On the other hand we have had as many as five or six people agree on an ID and then have someone challenge the ID and after more discussion the consensus changes on the ID. 

My initial post encouraged adding comments if there are questions, disagreement, useful information about the species, etc.  Indeed, it's probably easier for someone to disagree with three or fewer people than with five or six.

9 hours ago, Bird Brain said:

I don't think a thread should be locked if 3 have agreed on it because we're all prone to mistakes.

Agreed!  I'm not suggesting locking threads under any circumstances.  I'm hoping to encourage a bit of self-discipline, that's all.

I'm probably the most likely person here to go off topic or toss out an irreverent joke, and some may think I'm the last member who should be bringing this up.  Guilty, but I try to restrict my nonsense to posts that are within four or five of the top.  I view that as different from dredging up posts that are hours or days old just to reconfirm a bird after the original poster has thanked the previous responders.

Thanks to everyone for their comments so far, pro or con.

[akandula]

I agree with a lot of the above, that is, to reduce the number of plain “agreeds.” Additionally, I wanted to add that nobody should be replying “agreed” if they don’t actually know if the ID is right or wrong. For example, if you’ve never heard of a Leach’s Storm-Petrel, don’t agree with the original ID just for “reputation points” or whatever else. Only agree with IDs that you actually think are correct. The problem with just agreeing with everything suggested is that, as mentioned above, more people would be far more hesitant to disagree with many people than just one person. 

To emphasize my argument, I would disagree with what some people said above. It is stated earlier that some people are more uncomfortable if only one or two people confirm. However, in my viewpoint, all I want are “true” opinions. So, out of the 2500+ people on the forum, if only one or two people know the ID, let it be. I would not just want some “filler/fake agreeds” to meet the 3 confirmation goal.

[Charlie Spencer]

13 minutes ago, akandula said:

if you’ve never heard of a Leach’s Storm-Petrel, don’t agree with the original ID just for “reputation points”

When I start a post asking for identification, I 'Like' only the first couple of identifications.  Those with useful info get 'Liked' ahead of ones that provide only an ID.

I'm not 'Liking' a third or fourth post that just agrees everyone above is right.  'Likes' take too long to recharge to toss them around that casually.  I don't know what others do, but I doubt redundant agreements are earning many reputation points.  They're not getting any from me.

Oh, and if it helps,  https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/lcspet/cur/introduction

Edited May 22, 2020 by Charlie Spencer

[Kerri]

Could something like an agree and a disagree button be easily implemented? The post gets "locked" after 3 agrees but it allows someone to click the disagree button only? That would allow someone who did disagree leave a comment and bring the thread back to the top?

[Charlie Spencer]

I don't think we're going to get any changes made to the site.  We were kicking that can around even before the Great Crash of '18.  I think the admin team has customized to the extent of what's practical (with the exception of new sub-forums ).

[RobinHood]

I haven't read all the responses but agree with most of the comments, I think most people are on the same page.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is an easy solution - just too many variations in how threads unfold (as an example threads that seemed dead suddenly come back to life, usually a late and correct disagreement, then they become more interesting). Also we have had instances when the first three responses have all been incorrect, usually due to tagging on to the first answer.

When someone provides an ID I would personally like them to provide some level of certainty, if not absolutely sure then add a qualifier such as "wait for more responses". Most ID providers do this, or provide the backup, but not all.

It is easy for an OP to go off with the first response if it looks positive.

[Kevin]

In other words, be reasonable. Go ahead and say some thing if you want to, as long as it is something other than the 19th 'Agreed'.

[Melierax]

3 hours ago, akandula said:

I agree with a lot of the above, that is, to reduce the number of plain “agreeds.” Additionally, I wanted to add that nobody should be replying “agreed” if they don’t actually know if the ID is right or wrong. For example, if you’ve never heard of a Leach’s Storm-Petrel, don’t agree with the original ID just for “reputation points” or whatever else. Only agree with IDs that you actually think are correct. The problem with just agreeing with everything suggested is that, as mentioned above, more people would be far more hesitant to disagree with many people than just one person. 

To emphasize my argument, I would disagree with what some people said above. It is stated earlier that some people are more uncomfortable if only one or two people confirm. However, in my viewpoint, all I want are “true” opinions. So, out of the 2500+ people on the forum, if only one or two people know the ID, let it be. I would not just want some “filler/fake agreeds” to meet the 3 confirmation goal.

To add to this... A lot of the time after two people post, the OP thanks the identifiers and is clearly satisfied with the ID. I don't think there's any need after the fact to add an additional agreed.

[Melierax]

Just as a general rule of thumb that I go by, I never add a new identification unless I have some additional information to provide. I figure if I can't provide more information, other people will and help out the OP with the ID. Maybe it's just me, but I see this forum as more of a place where people can learn identification, not just constantly receive IDs from supposed experts. An explanation is always more valuable than a blank "agree".