with multiple images sounds good for trying to ID. This is my personal opinion.
I agree with you.
Our focus should be on identifying posts which have enough details for identification and not leaving any stone unturned in identifying difficult and new plants.
I have been forwarding only those posts which have already been displayed on our website. We should rather identify and remove such (incomplete or blurred) images from our website, and allow them to remain only in email threads. It should be our priority to identify and remove such images, so that they don’t come up in Google search. As I have already written in another thread any wrongly identified images (even if there is ? mark after the name) gets prominently displayed and consequently highlighted in Google search image display. If they are only in email threads they won’t come up in Google (or any other) search.
Yes …! I feel the purpose of ID should be helpful to ID in future for other members also. Blurred and incomplete images would not serve any purpose. And also, there are many posts in UN ID list which are already IDed and listed. This is taking too much time for me.
Lots of gems are hidden as unidentified- does not mean that we should delete them. Our policy is to keep all discussions on our website (since its inception), by properly displaying them under correct heading, as far as possible within our limited resources.
Let us do what we can do. My main focus is to see that the number of unidentified and doubtful identifications are reduced so that they don’t stand out as odds. You may or may not realise but when you search a particular taxon in image search and out or several thumbnails one stands out, and it is a real embarrassment at least for me, if I discover that this odd image is located in efloraofindia. I want to minimise that situation.
I am rather happy to see that several now active experts like … are helping us to identify several long pending posts, with … devoting his whole time to the noble cause.