‖≡≡≡≡‖

brightening may increase your chances to attract expert attention to this image

cropping images tight (so the bug fills the frame) may increase your chances for feedback/ID

i cropped the pic for you to increase your chances for an ID

i cropped your pics for the benefit of other users: regular users are unable to access your pics full-size and will miss important details where there is much empty space

please keep in mind that regular users are unable to access your pics full-size; all they see is a lot of background and very little of the bug

cropping images down just to the bug makes a lot of difference; photos showing mostly background often fail to attract expert attention.

please note that the less empty space the more detail is available for others to see (regular users cannot access full-size images)

for best results, any images posted for identification purposes should be cropped down just to the bug; whatever helps identification stays, whatever does not is out [no empty space/background]

images posted for identification purposes should be cropped down just to the bug; photos showing mostly background often fail to attract feedback

Please make sure to crop images posted for identification purposes so that the bug fills the frame

Please make sure to crop tight any images posted for identification purposes, so that the bug fills the frame: keep in mind that regular users are unable to see images full-size, and therefore critical details may be unavailable to those who might help

if you want an ID, please crop images down just to the specimen, so we can show them to an expert

if you replace these pics with tightly cropped versions (just the bug), i'll ask our expert to take a look

please replace the images with tightly cropped versions (just the bug, no empty space), then i'll ask our expert to take a look

please keep in mind that experts who don't have BG editor status are unable to see images full-size, and therefore i don't refer to them any photos that are not tightly cropped // and unless the images are properly cropped i won't ask a specialist to take a look

for identification purposes, make sure to crop images as close to the bug as possible (photos showing mostly background are often ignored)

Photos showing mostly background often fail to get the desired attention. Our experts volunteer their time and try to make each visit as efficient as possible. This means that an expert would rather provide several IDs for clearer images than spend time over a photo of little promise that shows lots of empty space and little detail of relevance.

If you need a name for a bug, do your part. Experts should not waste their time agonizing over images that could have been better prepared for identification by the contributor. When I put together a list of pics to submit to an expert, I select images that meet certain criteria; those that are not properly cropped won't make the list and thus probably remain without expert comment.

Please crop the images tight (just to the bug) for the benefit of other users: only you and the editors are able to see your images full-size.

could you please orient the beetles on your photos head up? or due west, as some prefer (i'm strongly in favor of the classical upright position, like in books)

traditionally, beetles are oriented on scientific illustrations head up (like people on formal portraits or photo IDs), so having photos positioned the same way helps a lot comparing them to those in reference sources. on lateral views, though, the head should preferably face 'west'/left (3hrs)

please note: for beetle/bug ID purposes, it always helps having them oriented head up -- this facilitates recognition. many pix are hard to ID because of unconventionally oriented specimen ONLY, so make sure your beetles/bugs have their heads up or (next best thing) to the left

could you please flip your pix so that the specimen faces 12 o'clock? standard orientation makes image recognition a lot easier

flip your pix so that the specimen faces 'north' or 'west' -- the standard orientation helps a lot recognizing them

Important guideline to follow in the future for best results: flip/position your beetle pix (this one and others) so that the specimen faces 'north'/12 o'clock? standard orientation makes image recognition a lot easier. Thanks!

There is no point in posting photos of well-represented species unless they surpass the existing images in quality, show important details of morphology/behavior, unusual variation from, or document a find outside the known geographic/host range.

if you want a beetle ID'd, taking a straight dorsal view is well worth extra effort: makes all the difference (other angles may help but are mostly of minor importance)

the oblique angle makes it hard to tell; making an extra effort to get a straight dorsal shot always pays off as it comes to beetle identification; angles like here are the main reason why people get tentative or shaky IDs where even a not-so-perfect yet straight dorsal view would have secured a positive ID

for beetle/bug identification purposes, it is advisable to post the all-important dorsal view first

for beetles & Heteroptera, the single by far most important piece of imagery is straight dorsal view (worth a hundred of oblique angles in most cases): it would bring you a confident [genus] ID in a matter of minutes even at this low-res quality; with oblique angles, even at higher res, it's usually just guesswork (often very time-consuming)

for beetle identification purposes, the single most important piece of imagery is straight dorsal view; other angles may help but, if posted alone, are of little, if any, diagnostic value

For beetle & bug identification purposes, it is important to avoid oblique angles that make recognition more difficult, and try hard to obtain a straight dorsal view (then add any additional angles and details that may facilitate our task). This recommendation is by no means universal, and for such groups as lacewings, hoppers, caddisflies, orthopterans, and some other taxa non-dorsal shots often work much better.

Also, please refer to [url=node/view/298899]this forum thread[/url] for more recommendations – these are by no means official but are loosely followed by most editors and many contributors, which helps a lot to expedite identification process.

Procedural hint for the future: Please post all flies to the [url=node/view/55/bgimage/]Diptera page[/url]: this will get you IDs faster, as our dipterists look for BG work there rather than in ID Request

for the future: to have your images noticed by the experts and get IDs faster, post all caddis-, stone-, and mayfly pics to the respective order pages rather than to ID Request

To expedite identification, please post all flies to the [url=node/view/55/bgimage/]Diptera page[/url]: our dipterists usually look there rather than in ID Request

please do not place your images on the guide pages... ...before they get reviewed by experts. People rely on the integrity of this site, and one misidentification may lead to many others, quickly proliferate over the web, and get perpetuated

Please do not place your images to the guide pages beyond the level you are completely comfortable with.

pics with reliable IDs can be posted directly to guide pages; feel free to do so in the future, but first check what's already on that page; there is no point in adding photos of common and well-represented species unless your images show something new and valuable (important anatomical details, undocumented behavior, & the like)

You are asking, 'Is this a ?' --why then post it in the section it may not belong to, in your own opinion?

size data only help if measured in mm, otherwise the field is better left blank

if size wasn't measured, simply leave the size field blank

indicated size unrealistic, at least twice overestimated. size data only help if measured in mm, otherwise the field is better left blank. estimates are misleading in the majority of cases.

unless you have an accurate measurement in mm, the size field is best left blank: estimates are useless for identification purposes, and more often mislead than help

in this particular case, i would have been pretty confident about the ID but for the fact that nothing of this gestalt is within the indicated size range

estimates posted without a clear indication that the size has not actually been measured often badly hurt one's chances to get an ID

The short answer is, don't worry about measuring anything at all in the field and leave the size box blank. Keep in mind that only measurements accurate to ca. 0.1 mm may help identification, but such level of accuracy is unachievable in the field. On the other hand, estimates are totally useless for identification purposes unless one is familiar enough with the group to come up with a reliable assessment that could help an expert, e.g., "somewhat larger and more robust than Osteodera stackenschneideri that is common in my area" –-but observations of that kind also belong in the Remarks field. Again, no size data is much better than a misleading estimate (say, 1-2 mm off) -- it is the latter that may really hurt your chances for an ID, not the former. Also, the background (leaves, sand, fabric, etc.) usually provides sufficient reference to get an idea of the organism's size. NB: this applies only to taxa i'm more familiar with, such as beetles, Heteroptera, and a few minor orders; can't be sure about other insects, but strongly suspect the same to be true in most cases as well

pentatomoid nymph, maybe Scutelleridae -- perhaps too young to tell, but i'll show it around. With few exceptions, nymphs are tough to ID, and, in general, the only reliable way is to associate them with adults by either rearing [hardly possible] or tracking their metamorphosis on the host plant

several top experts i tried to engage would provide no ID, not even a suggestion, on the vast majority of nymphal pentatomoid images, esp. as young as this one. following their development into adults seems to be the only reliable way to find out what they are.

The text that applies to all the images of the series should go with the first image (no need to repeat the same remarks elsewhere).

Please keep in mind that the experts who volunteer on BugGuide to help others are busy people and their spending extra time reading the same stuff often means that someone else’s photos may receive no attention. You can put under other images of the series any necessary additional details pertaining to those specific photos, such as ‘Crop of previous image’.

I would suggest editing your remarks here to read like this: “xxx” – this is all[/b] you need to say. Saves time – and screen space, too.

images showing more background than bug and/or those with insufficient data often fail to attract expert feedback

insufficient data is a major reason why images fail to attract expert feedback

please make sure to include sighting date with your submissions [the field is left blank here], properly capitalize place names [no all-caps], and provide size measurements in mm (otherwise the size field is better left blank: inches are not used in entomological literature, and estimates do not help identification, either)

unfortunately, there are many problems with the ref entries: they are unavailable for moving, editing by others, etc (this will hopefully be corrected in the upcoming version 2.0)

could you pls add 'by xxx' to the title? thanks. unfortunately, editing anything posted under 'Books' & 'Links' is available to the item contributor only -- i wouldn't have bothered you otherwise... =v=

keep in mind that linking is reserved strictly for images of the same individual

would you please drop me a word offline to vmarfus on gmail? thanks.

vacuuming regularly (like, every other week) every corner where dust (=human/pet skin scales & hair + wool lint + occasional dead arthropod, &c) tends to accumulate; floors along baseboards, deep folds in sofas/chairs, bed frames are their hangouts of choice. That will keep their population at bay.

common in homes worldwide

check your pantry; bird seed is a common source

state abbreviations are redundant (state added from another field) -- please refer to the filling instructions provided in the submission form and correct location data

state does not belong in the City field; please refer to the filling instructions provided in the submission form and make corrections here and elsewhere

please fill in the requisite location data

providing determinations/IDs on specimens without adequate provenance info is considered bad practice, and specialists usually decline such requests

frassing vs deleting own submissions: please consider another option available to you only as the contributor: you can delete your own image, not just frass. suggest deleting this image: it's a duplicate, so holding it in Frass doesn't make much sense.

suggest deleting (rather than frassing) this one to avoid confusion (click 'edit' and scroll down to see the Delete button -- available to you only)

avoid typing scientific names! mouse-drag or copy-and-paste organism names from a trusted, proofread source: in the digital era misspellings are especially perilous because they make relevant pieces of information irretrievable via web/database searches --or worse: they become a source for new errors proliferating rapidly over the internet (i've seen names with misspelled versions statistically prevailing over correct ones in Google search results!)

it's always a good idea to copy-and-paste scientific names from a trusted, proofread source [rather than retype]: in the digital world misspellings are especially perilous because they make relevant pieces of information irretrievable via web/database searches

from experience, what looks and feels like insect bites is usually caused by excessive use of detergent in the washer. using it sparingly and rinsing the laundry thoroughly takes care of the problem.