Initial observation titles can't be changed?

I read that on ’iSpot we are interested in demonstrating the process of identification, so that once you have added an identification you can’t delete it, only add a revision’, which suggests (in relation to my attempts to try to change what proves to be an inaccurate title) that once we have selected and typed a title/name for an observation - e.g. ‘Fly with yellow bands’ - this can’t be changed when we learn the proper name.

Please may I clarify that this is the case.

And, if so, is it best to have as the title of an observation the most definite thing we know e.g. ‘Insect’, rather than ‘Possible 14-spot Ladybird, Propylea quatuordecimpunctata’?

Thank you everybody! :slight_smile:

Hello - you can’t change the identification once you’ve submitted it, but you can change your mind and add a new ID - and in my experience ISpot then would choose your second ID as the correct identification unless someone else agrees with the first one. It is easy enough to change the title of your observation though - open the observation, select edit and then go to the details tab; once you’re happy with it, confirm the change on the final tab.

It is up to you as to what you want to call it - some ISpotters have slightly humorous titles for their observations, for example, some request ID help in the title: entirely your choice.


I have personal opinions about Titles but will share them anyway
I suppose it does not matter what you add as the Observation title but sometimes (often in some cases) Internet Search Engines come up with iSpot Observations during searches and ‘is this really something’ or 'Janet’s 1099th spot submitted on 15th September 2010" do not give a reasonable impression.
I don’t think we should ever leave it to iSpot to choose one for us IMG 2548, does not look good for your image - get it?
Neither does OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA look good as the Description Text.
But we might want everyone to look at our Observation so ‘You MUST look at this’ or ‘Rare green Red Admiral’ might have the desired affect.
A title that says Elephant but where the Image is eventually identified as a Giraffe OUGHT to have its title changed.
Propylea quatuordecimpunctata’ is fine until it turns out to be ‘Tytthaspis sedecimpunctata’ - only perhaps should it be changed - few people would spot the difference!.
I have just (a few mins ago) made an observation with the title Low Passes…Will anyone look at it? Might it come up in a Google search for Astro-exploration? I hope so.

Thank you, JoP … very helpful! :hibiscus:

All good points: thank you, dejayM. And who knows what Google search words we will provide! :grinning:

Titles can be changed, although identifications and comments can’t. Often - as delayM points out - they do need revision. “Beetle, maybe?” for a post leter found to be a True Bug is acceptable, because it indicates that a doubtful identification has been investigated and corrected. But “Beetle” would be better for a revision to (maybe) “Thought it was a beetle”.
Changing them sometimes confuses, however. On several occasions a title such as “unknown beetle” has been changed retrospectively to match the identification given by another user. This looks, superficially, as though the person supplying the identification has only been agreeing with the post, not having worked to find out what the organism is. Mildly annoying, if the search has been onerous.
Titles should be useful and/or memorable whenever possible, and I feel (not that everyone agrees, I suspect) that a little humour doesn’t go amiss - as long as the rest of the post is accurate and informative.

1 Like

Thank you, Amadan (and others here), for your thoughtful response.

Amadan: re: your second paragraph… presumably you (or a fellow iSpot user) is keen for a less experienced user (like me) to learn from your corrected ID. And therefore, presumably, so long as the less experienced user has checked out your suggestion and found it to match, it should be a good outcome (shouldn’t it?) if an updated ID along those lines is then added?

But perhaps I am missing something here… I’m sure those of us who are less experienced on the site are learning so much from those with more knowledge, and that it is this process in part that is (a) making the IDs more accurate in the end and (b) helping us to learn so that we in due course can begin to have the skills to help others in the same way. But I may have misunderstood you? I know for myself that I am extremely grateful to all who give me a helping hand - so thank you all. :slight_smile:

And to all on this thread, it says in ‘11.1’ of the newly updated rules that ‘If you need to revise … text that you have submitted, please contact us at iSpot.’ Please could someone explain how this fits with upgrading an ID in the way we have been discussing. I presume it is OK to add an updated ID, as we have been doing? Thank you… :maple_leaf:

Yes - it’s good to update the title if it helps to indicate the progress of reasoning (occasionally guessing :wink:?) towards a “correct” conclusion. My point was that simply changing it to match a corrected identification can be confusing if it simply reflects the revision.The presentation of observations on sites like this is necessarily terse and concise, so one often has to infer the “timeline” of a post. In my example, if I changed a title to “Thought it was a beetle”, that shows others that the wee beastie in question can be so mis-identified: part of the learning process.
I can’t really comment on the iSpot rules, but I suspect they are referring to other potential issues than a mis-identification. The fact that the user can no longer edit his/her comment - even to correct a simple typo - is frustrating to myself and others.
Slightly off the subject, you’ve put up some very nice posts - please keep it up!

I have asked Janice for clarification here
11. iSpot Content: corrections (including photographs)
“… we obtain from you an irrevocable licence to use photographs and images. If you need to revise or remove photos, images or text that you have submitted, please contact us at iSpot”.
And suggested that it OUGHT to be discussed in the Forum. I hope to get a response.

I guess that working within the Spirit of the Statement we should not disrupt the ID process by substantially changing the text or by adding/removing pictures.
I have long believed that we should add a note (in the Description Panel) to say WHAT has been edited or Added or Removed
Best, possibly to make a new Observation and refer to the old IF disruption is inevitable.