that you like to link to the Images page for a species, rather than the Info page (which shows the same image thumbnails as the Images page, plus often contains information and links that are useful for identification)?

When you direct visitors to Images rather than Info pages, other editors may feel that their work in completing Guide pages is being ignored, and the time they spend in gathering information is being wasted.

Given that the primary goal is obtaining/confirming an ID for a specimen based largely on photo images with peripheral supporting information, I link to the image pages because that is where the contributer can see all the available images for comparison rather than the random select images that are generated on the info page (this is particularly important with highly variable species).

Once they have viewed all available images of that species and are comfortable with the ID, they can then proceed to the info page to obtain further info on the species. That is how I use the Guide when I need to ID a Dipteran I've photo'd, and that's how my friends and family whom I refer to this site, use it as well. It's just a preference. I'm certainly not attempting to undermine any Guide page contributors' work, and I don't think any guide page contributors (myself included) would truly feel that way.

I brought up the topic because I believe there is more to identification than just eyeballing photos. Knowing what particular features to look for, knowing what distinguishes similar species from the current one, and knowing the geographic distribution, habitat, and/or seasonality are all part of identification.

This knowledge can't be gained from photos, and any ID made without this knowledge is a guess that is more likely to be wrong because almost every species has one or more look-alikes. I've misidentified photos this way myself; it's an easy trap to fall into.

When there are 8 or fewer images for a given taxon (as in the Baileya australis example above) the thumbnails on the Images and Info pages are identical, but the Info page has the advantage of containing information that can be helpful or even crucial for accurate ID. In cases like this, I think it makes more sense to link to the more-helpful Info page (rather than the less-helpful Images page, hoping that the user will click the Info page later anyway).

I see what you're saying, and for the most part in general, I agree with you. That's the reason I don't rely solely on photo comparisons for IDs of the subjects I photo, for which I don't know the ID. However, photo images are the primary ID method here on this site, with the supporting info being secondary and corroborative. Most contributors don't come here with notes seeking to compare to a written description from the info pages. It's predominantly photo based. Therefore photo comparison is the first line of action in procuring an ID for their photo. And while I know that for some species, all of the available photos on the Guide do happen to be on the info page, rather than sorting which do and which don't, I've just consistently given links to the image pages knowing that the info page is a click away.

Also, when I send someone to the image pages, I'm not doing it in hopes of an ID. I've already made the ID in most cases and I'm merely pointing the contributor to the starting point of the ID process, so that they can walk through the steps.

But like I said, it's just a preference. In the classes that I've taught on insect identification, this method has been overwhelmingly successful. No ill intentions or conspiring against info pages whatsoever, I promise. :)

I agree, I'd do it too, but I don't know the html