ID Request!

...was the only way i could do it. Norm Woodley checked 70+ calyptrate submissions i bounced his way earlier today, so he gets the credit for any Real Progress. And i didn't really do much with the acalyps, but they will be expediently taken care of by our faithful dipterists [ca. 30 pix perhaps] -- i'll give the guys the headsup.
Sincerely,
=B.L. The Boob=

I recently got to know the curator (John Swann) of the research collection at the U. of Calgary, who has a special interest in the diptera. When I'm back there after my vacation, I'll introduce him to this site. No guarantees he will join the group though..but hopefully he will.

thanks a lot, Tim.
btw, i just got my 1984 ed. of Merritt & Cummins [US$5+S&H on e-bay, can you believe it?] -- amazing stuff...

The time volunteered by the experts should be factored in. Paradoxically, keeping images in ID Request in many cases effectively prevents images from being identified. Who would be willing to go thru hundreds of images to fish out half a dozen that require his attention? specialists hardly ever go past page 5 of the ID Request. I can tell someone, ‘Dear Dr. X, would you please comment on images I moved for you to the Ohuellinae subfamily page at http://bugguide.net/node/view/0000007?’ – yet we absolutely cannot expect anyone to help if asked to go fish to the ID Request. Now, the dear Dr. X goes thru the images and identifies what he can and says, ‘The rest of the images show the species of the Zaebini tribe that is currently revised by Dr. Y. Griego; show them to her.’ So I move the balance to the Zaebini page and e-mail Dr. Y. Griego to solicit her services. That’s how the entire process works.
I believe that leaving images under ID Request as it is now creates a huge drag to the process; moving stuff ASAP is a major factor contributing to the progress we’re making as the best online resource of its kind anywhere. Please keep in mind that the academics who provide the IDs are busy people; most of them only visit BugGuide if asked or reminded multiple times.
Now, the situation in Moths is indeed dismal-abysmal and highlights, in a grotesque way, what is inherently wrong with the ‘institutionalized’ ID Request, which is more or less that we can’t reasonably expect anybody in his right mind even go there on his own volition. Moving images to that dump is no ID at all, not by a long shot, and at this point only makes sense in the context of ID Request cleanup, I admit.

Solution used by others
A solution used on several European insect fora is quite simple and efficient. The concept of identification request is not associated with a specific dedicated spot on the site map but is an attribute of a submission – a label of sorts that travels with the image to be removed once the image hits the bottom, i.e. gets a reliable species ID.
Every section has an option to view unidentified/unconfirmed submissions [on that level or incl. subordinate taxa] and the images flow step by step down the ranks before landing at the species level ‘permanently’

The concept of the ID Request as a hellish place where stuff can simmer indefinitely is a major obstacle to the identification process.
Tear down this wall!

...as saying that I wholeheartedly agree with the emphasis being placed on making things as stream-lined and efficient as possible for the sake of those experts who graciously give their time and expertise to the site. Obviously (especially at the height of image submission in the summer months) ID Request is not the best place for anyone with limited time to try and navigate in search of images for specific insect groups. My hope is that waiting a couple of days before moving new images to a more appropriate spot will not impede this process excessively. But, I am in total agreement with =v= that images should not be allowed to languish on the last pages of ID Request for weeks on end, simply for want of a species ID.

"The time volunteered by the experts should be factored in. . . . we absolutely cannot expect anyone to help if asked to go fish to the ID Request."

I see. My misgivings about multiple moves, now that I think about it more, often arise when an image hasn't been in ID Request at all or when the image stayed there briefly before taking baby steps through a series of other sections. For instance, when I have a new spider to submit and I can't place it in an easy taxon like jumpers or funnel-web weavers, I use the clickable spider, and the photo lands in Araneae. Sometimes an editor then moves it to Entelegynes, which isn't much help for ID. Much later, it may go to a family, genus, or species section. Does a different expert look at Entelegynes, Recent, than looks at Araneae, Recent, so that the intermediate move to Entelegynes eases the expert's work?

Similarly, a move from, say, Noctuidae to Noctuinae doesn't tell me what kind of moth I saw. Maybe such a move usefully narrows the field for people who know about moths? From a novice's end, it suggests editors tiptoeing through the images, making very conservative moves, afraid to break something. Don't worry, I don't seriously believe that that's the reality. It's only an impression.

is that spiders and moths are both big, confusing groups for which we don't have enough experts, and which are often difficult for amateurs to figure out how to identify. When we have hundreds and hundreds of images to sort through, anything we can do to break them into groups helps to make them a bit more manageable, and makes it more likely that we can attract more specialists to help us out. I seem to remember Lynette explaining the system she and a few others are using in sorting the spiders somewhere, but I don't know offhand what forum topic that was.

A move from Noctuidae to Noctuinae doesn't tell you exactly what moth you saw, but it drastically reduces the options, given that there are 22 subfamilies in Noctuidae (soon to be 25 or so when some of the other noctuoid families are reduced to subfamilies). This gives you, or anyone else who decides to take a crack at it, a smaller set of images to browse through when trying to find a match for your moth.

I just thought that I would mention that I routinely check every possible place that any spider could be lurking when I log on every day. Arachnida, araneae, araneomorphae, etc...basically the beginning of every larger taxonomic rank as well as ID Request, recent, and even frass. And granted, I am no certified expert, but I'm not too shabby at spider identification (and I'm working on accepting defeat when I am wrong, lol). I love working with spiders and identifying other peoples' spiders...which we all know leads to more learning along the way. I guess my point is that for certain Bug Guiders who love what they do and love to help others while learning along the way...they seek out unidentified critters. They go out of their way to see where they can help. At least that's what I have come to assume and love about the people here. There's got to be at least one lone cowboy or cowgirl in each class, order, family, genus, and species that goes out of their way to find those unidentified submissions and finds a way to get them ID'd. That's as simple as posting a comment to get the ball rolling. I have been surprised many a time when I've dug deep into the guide and commented on a spider that seemed long forgotten, and right away more people commented...eventually leading to an ID.

Well, I may or may not have just rambled on a bit. I just think that with the right people we have here, it doesn't matter where something initially gets placed. They all get cared for eventually. Personally, I've even found a liking for ye ol' trash heap (frass). It's always a surprise...one man's trash is another man's treasure (sometimes). ;)

sufficient for the regular visitors to ID Request to view the images

If a species ID is not forthcoming soon then I suggest moving to the most precise taxon for which ID is certain

In other words, I think ID request is best initially (at least a day perhaps a few) but lacking a quick response the images are better moved to taxon pages

I don't think it helpful to move images out of ID Request too quickly, before regular visitors have even seen them

How does that sound?

...both here and in the other forum discussion currently in progress on this topic. Initially, I had suggested perhaps waiting a week before making such moves, but now I'm thinking something closer to 48 hours may be sufficient. Of course, this would in no way apply to images which have been identified to species. As Beatriz has already commented, those can and should be moved as soon as possible.

48 hrs seems sufficient to me (unless I'm traveling)

Lady beetles show up miraculously in Coccinellidae when I turn on the computer first thing in the morning! Now, if they could just bring the coffee and the newspaper with them...

i wouldn't mind one bit if you would, Abby. Just try -- the race will be fun.

I am a newer contributor so forgive me if I don't really know what's going on sometimes... I don't mean to be 'debbie downer' but I'm curious, are all those ID Request submissions actually being ID'd or just moved somewhere else to sit? I guess the experts will check their relative sections...and ID what's put there? Forgive me, but is there a reason that ID Request is better when empty? Technically, the images that are there haven't been identified yet, right? In my short time here, the editors have proven to be quite alert and very mindful to move images from ID Request as soon as they've been ID'd (to at least family if not better). It's like ocean waves bringing things in and taking this back if you think about it. For example, I noticed that recently Lynette had really cleaned up and moved things to their page in the spider section...but as that section got emptier, all the spiders from ID Request came in to fill it up again. Isn't that just the nature of things here? ID Request gets empty, while other sections fill up. Other sections get empty, while ID Request fills up. I guess I'm ranting now. I feel that I may be coming across as a little 'cold' but that's really not my aim (and not even the kind of person I am). I just thought this would start a discussion of sorts and possibly answer my questions about this subject. Maybe even help put me in my place, lol. :)

Hi Mandy:

Identification is a relative concept: identified to order, family, genus, species, subspecies.... Sometimes its virtually impossible to identify a photographic specimen to, say, species; other times BugGuide just doesn’t have the expertise...yet. Reasons for inability to identify to species are almost as varied and individual as the specimens themselves. If identification is relative, then identification to family may be considered “identified” and in some cases useful and/or desirable.

As for what approach is “better”, that’s a matter of opinion. Moreover, BugGuide’s “best” procedures(s) may change. Optimally tracking change takes a lot of work so there may be some fits and starts that make for a bumpy ride. You can check one dialogue here: http://bugguide.net/node/view/359165.

You seem to have a grasp of the ebb & flow of specimens here. Despite my relativistic first paragraph, I don’t think anyone thinks something moved to “Moths” is identified. So its accurate to point out that an empty ID Request doesn’t necessarily mean an identified collection.

Finally, I hope I didn’t miss something you were saying. I think if you want to do some ranting, you’re gonna have to ramp it up a bit. On the other hand, I ask for your understanding if I come off as overly pedantic and/or patronizing.

I'm not sure I can ramp up my rantings on this one, lol. I would have to be angry or extraordinarily passionate about this subject...and actually, I can't say I am either. You didn't come across patronizing at all, nor pedantic (if my definition of the word is correct, lol). I actually agree with and have been aware of everything you spoke about. Especially about identifications being relative. I myself need to remember that more often, as I sometimes try too hard to get a spider ID'd to species...knowing that maybe only family is provable. It's almost as though there is a certain amount of excitement and relief when something is identified all the way to species or subspecies. At least that's how it makes me feel. I need to remember that family is just fine! I guess that by posting my previous comment I was hoping to find out why it is so exciting to clean out ID Request. I thought maybe there was something I didn't know, lol. But, as Beatriz mentioned, moving them out is just one necessary step. As simple as that is, I hadn't even thought of it that way! I guess that no matter what, they somehow must get out of ID Request. Thank you all for your help...I have a different point of view now, believe it or not! :) I'm off to read the forum that David left a link to. Thanks guys!

Why its so exciting:

Actually, my original post was meant to be value-neutral and I knowingly “erred” on the side of approval. Whether I approved or not of the process or the outcome was less important to me than that BugGuide editors, to varying degrees, volunteered to a monumental task, persevered, and achieved success by their own definition. I was surprised; I didn’t really know what had happened. This does not in any way undermine my appreciation or sincerity. This was first about the human spirit, about a certain direction, and second about an insect collection.

Yet another point I had failed to realize! The editors taking on this huge task! I absolutely find that in and of itself to be exciting, like you pointed out. See!...I knew I would be put in my place! And, David, my comment wasn't directed at you personally for posting this forum topic...more like at the whole subject as a whole (it's been talked about quite a bit since the ID Request clean-up took place). So I hope no offense was taken. I have a bad habit of blabbing before thinking. And right now I actually feel quite bad for marring this forum with my somewhat 'un-jolly' comment. I wish I could erase it, lol! (You should add something to your original forum post to the effect of what you just wrote in the comment above. I thought it was quite powerful actually.)

that every summer the ID Request list grows to overwhelming proportions. It used to be that we would hit the panic button at around 50 or 60 pages; but the last two summers we accepted the fact that submissions were coming fast and furiously and that there was no choice but to let them pile up to more than 100 pages. Then, when the cold weather sends all the bugs and bug photographers into hiding we would be able to catch up.
But there has never been such catching up as this. It must be a record. Perhaps, more significant than the number of images in ID Request is the date of the oldest one. There were times in which some requests lingered for many, many months; but this is not the case now.

Yes, I totally get that your post wasn’t personal. I do feel some responsibility for starting the thread, that’s all. Certainly no offense taken.

Its like when I find a rare bird. I feel a responsibility to try and keep track of it rather than assume through inaction that others will.

Don’t fret about your post. It was the only one asking for needed elucidation. Quite on the ball really.

I can see why you don't get overexcited about this. There are, for instance, 137 pages of unidentified moths (an ID Request of sorts, I would say). Moving things out of ID Request is just one step; a necessary step, yes, but in many cases the heavy duty job of identifying things further still remains.

...Beatriz meant well over 3000 images, or, say, 2500 submissions -- which fact i mention again and again to every new editor veniens in mundum in the vain hope s/he is less lep-illiterate than i am and could make a difference

I think part of the issue with the moth section is that people seem to be waiting for a firm species-level ID before moving images. It would be great if lep folks could offer more family- or genus-level IDs, so images can be moved somewhere more specific once they start to become buried and forgotten. Geometrids often have an easily recognizable gestalt, so I spent some time today going through the back pages of the moth section and moving images to that family. In the process I came across a number that even I (also pretty lep-illiterate) could place more specifically. Got two new moth guide pages out of the deal, too. I encourage folks who actually know something about moths to venture back there and see what images they can place to family or better.

*

That is an amazingly HUGE amount of pages.

*

Lowest I've ever seen. The second page only has 8 images.

I almost thought I was on the wrong Web site...

*

incredible!! still at 2 pages

with 2 images on the second page.

;)

...not only that, but i have discussed the product at great length with another distinguished member of BG community as recently as this afternoon...

...hehe! What is your favorite brand? Vodka is my drink of choice but I haven't ventured far from a few brands (nothing fancy either). Perhaps you could tell me one I had better try?

i would be totally inappropriate for me to mention any brands/trademarks publicly but i would eagerly educate a consumer in private; just drop a word, m'kaay?

Oh, gosh, I really liked vodka. I don't want you to think that a half-Uke with a Cossack great-grandfather didn't like her vodka. (And man, could I drink a lot of it.) However, it has since come to my attention that I'm powerless over alcohol and my life had become unmanageable, and now I don't get any more vodka. I'd have given you mine if you'd been here on March 25, 2007, though!

i won't disclose the brand, but rest assured i recommended Mandy a Uke product as my first choice

Good taste, sir! :-)

and btw Mandy is an editor now, too -- so we do not only promote brands...

I raise a glass of non-alcoholic champagne to her!

Not to mention honored! I hope that I can add a little piece of myself to the guide and help in every way that I am able! I am very excited to be an editor, you guys...but I must say that I would like to sit back and watch you guys do what you do a little longer, before I start meddlin' around. :)

we're lucky to have you on board, Mandy. i so mean it.