Questionable IDs. We need higher standards.

First, I agree no genus or species level identification should be 'anonymous,' including ones submitted by reputable contributors. I still have no idea who is identifying Tom Murray's Psocoptera images, for example, though I trust Tom is not pulling names out of the air himself. Second, in instances where an expert offers a "possible" or "probable" species, I have no problem creating a species page, but with a disclaimer on the "info" tab stating that "identification from images alone is problematic." That phrase can be applied to MANY instances of genus and species identifications! Lastly, if the image is of a voucher specimen taken after the image was taken and subsequently identified by an expert, then that should be mentioned with the initial submission. Aside: as advances in molecular biology happen, lots of images we are currently confident about will be turned upside down.

The late Bryant Mather of MS was an avid amateur lepidopterist. He would send many of his moth specimens to multiple experts. Often he would receive conflicting ID's. All of these opinions were carefully recorded, and the various ID labels were stacked on the specimen pin. I looked at some of his specimens that had conflicting ID labels from three different well-known authorities. These long "paper trails" served as an indicator of the level of uncertainty of the ID. If three experts agreed all was well: If three disagreed, caution was suggested.
I think a paper trail can be equally useful with BugGuide photos. If you have doubts about an ID, add your comment, but carefully explain why you have doubts. If you disagree with expressed doubts, add your comment, again with a careful explanation. This assembly of comments will help show the level of confidence associated with the photo, whether is is placed at the genus or species level.
Another area that I think is important. If a photo has been identified to species without an explanation and you are genuinely curious about the basis of this identification, FIRST: Exhaust your resources! Check other BugGuide photos, and fieldguides. Put the name in Google. If you discover information that helps explain the reason for the ID, add a comment providing this info for others. If not, THEN I think it is fair to ask for the basis for the identification. If you see such a request and have useful information, please supply it. As a more generalized idea, GET INVOLVED!
One last item: Certainty is extremely rare in identification of creatures, even with specimen in hand. Almost all revisions of groups of creatures uncover misidentified specimens in museum collections (at least according to the revisor). Identification from photographs introduces another order of magnitude in possible errors. If we require certainty, we had best leave things at the family level. Whether stated or not, I think some level of uncertainty is to be expected, especially at the species level. BugGuide fortunately allows for comments, corrections, and adjustment of level of ID as needed. Please use these features!
Gayle

I think the ID of that Schinia as arcigera is fine--it is a good match for all the other images we have ID'd as that species, it is common in the southeast, and the season is correct--early fall is when it is usually seen. I think the commenters (John and Jane Balaban) were thinking of Schinia rivulosa, which has a similar, but not identical pattern. I'd say that ID is just about as good as any moth ID we have here. (I'm of course, prepared to be shown incorrect.)

I'll certainly agree on the Andrena species. For that sort of thing, I think leaving a photo at the genus level, with comments on probable species are fine.

Myself, I can't get too worried about this problem. I take any ID from a photo with a grain of salt, depending on the documentation. I'm perfectly willing to assign a photo to a species if the strong majority of evidence supports it. For instance, I identified our first Epicauta pennsylvanica based on illustrations in popular guides, host plant preferences, and overwhelming abundance on a regional checklist from my area, combined with some process of elimination:

I still don't have a 100% certain ID based on a key or expert opinion on this one, but I think the ID has stood the test of time. Like anything, it might be corrected in the future. But I think it was useful, in that case, to go ahead and take a shot at a species-level ID. Otherwise we would not all have learned something about this genus.

I've seen too many cases here, too, of experts coming in and making a quick, incorrect ID based on overall appearance. It happened with this Ichneumon wasp, for instance:

Originally it was identified as Gnamptopelta obsidianator, a superficially similar species, by an expert. The ID seemed completely firm, but it was not. Another expert, Ray Fisher, later corrected the ID and showed all of us the difference. All of us make mistakes, even experts, and the nice thing about BugGuide is that they can be corrected. Though it would be nice to prevent all mistakes, there is also the danger that we will prevent new information from being developed by being too cautious. We really are improving the state-of-the-art here in field identification of North American insects, and some mistakes are inevitable.

In the case where the contributor places an image without any explanation, I think that the help section may need to be updated. Below is the current instruction to the contributor.

How do I submit my image for inclusion in the guide?

If you're confident about the identity, you should feel free to submit the image directly to the appropriate place in the guide.

If I'm confident!?!? Maybe it should have stronger wording.

I understand that editors don't want to do all the moving, but they also don't want to police the guide either. Does it take more time for an editor to police the guide, or to do the placement themself?

Unless all of the moving is done by the editors, and every image goes through a holding area like ID request, I think that images will always end up where ever the contributor was confident it belonged?

I think it is good to leave a comment when you see something like that. Just something simple like, Unless the ID is certain, this image should probably be left at the genus level.