user-1: The reputation system used by Stack Exchange to rate replies to questions, and to rate those who provide answers, is based on scores given by editors and users with sufficient reputation points. It is a reasonable approach for technical questions where it is not difficult to provide conclusive answers using reputable information sources, such as official documentation for a computer language.
By contrast, species identification questions that rely solely on a photograph do not fall in the same category. You can not provide conclusive documentation for a photo. You can only provide circumstantial evidence. That means that the quality of putative species identifications is subjective and should not be given the same weight as answers that can be supported by conclusive documentation.
Yet we have people down-voting replies to species IDs because of 'lack of evidence'. Hogwash!
There has been lengthy discussion on Biology meta about the pros and cons of posting species identification questions. But I don't see much discussion about answering such questions. For posters, there are guidelines (e.g. Welcome to Biology.SE! Identifications questions should include...). What about for replies?
I am particularly interested in the question of experts vs laypeople. Here is the issue:
Some species are are well-known to the general public (dogs, cats, goldfish), others to specialists only (insects, amphibians, fungi). 

In these cases, expertise in the particular taxonomic would lend credibility to species identification.

But Stack Exchange permits only circumstantial evidence in species identifications, and provides no avenue for expert opinion.

The general public and the US court system rely on experts to answer questions regarding species identification. For example, I once provided expert witness testimony on the identification of an insect found in a candy bar. I have two degrees in zoology and a Ph.D. in biology, and have worked as a professional entomologist and as a professional herpetologist. Those credentials are considered sufficient to make me an "expert" and to raise the status of my opinion above the average person. Yet on Stack Exchange, there is no way to distinguish my level of expertise when I identify a specimen from a photo.
To me, the idea that a citation or other information can unequivocally identify a species from a photo alone is ludicrous. Biologists use taxonomic keys or DNA when a conclusive species identification is required. Sure, one could provide evidence based on coloration, pattern, morphology, and size. But 1) individuals of a species show variation in these traits, and 2) such evidence can only suggest an identification, not provide a conclusive answer.
On the other hand, someone with the proper education and years of experience in identifying species from specific taxonomic groups can provide reliable identifications. A grey wolf specialist with 20 years in the field should be considered a reliable source on the identity of a wolf from a photo. Her opinion should be given greater status than someone lacking her background.
I'm sure I am not the first to suggest a system that recognizes education and experience when judging replies to ID questions. The same reasoning could be applied to any of the topical areas of Stack Exchange.
And I realize that I am opening a can of worms just by asking this question. I have only scratched the surface of issues that could be (and perhaps have been) raised.
Still I believe the question merits discussion. Why not include education and experience in reputation scores and when judging the reliability of replies to questions?

user16866: Regardless of your (or anyone's) own legitimacy or expertise, the internet doesn't know that about you (nor should users passing through necessarily believe that to be true about you -- there are plenty of "fake" experts out there). Having a more formal source of info allows users to check in on the legitimacy of something more completely & objectively. It also enables them to use your source as a doorway to learning more about the topic. Take a look through Yahoo answers or Quora and see how many "legitimate" answers from "experts" are wrong -- without regular citing practices, users will never know one way or the other
We want posts to demonstrate your line of thinking. If you're an expert, then expand someone else's understanding. Walk them through your thought process using reputable links, pictures, guides, keys, etc. If you learned to ID something personally using a "gestalt" approach, take the time to confirm a resource that backs up what you always believed to be true. Everyone walks away understanding more about the subject organism. No one should believe you just because you're an expert. In the age of internet misinformation, we need to be explicit, demonstrative and well-cited when teaching others
also, certain individuals here have demonstrated themselves to be experts. Often the way you write posts (vocab, resources you link, etc.) paint a picture of who you are as a biologist and where your expertise lies. So, pad your answers with the best evidence you can, do so in an informed and formal manner, answer a few more questions the same way, and you'll certainly pick up a reputation here. You can comment about your expertise in your bio, too, as people will go looking to find out who this new "expert" is that's giving a bunch of good answers ;). Thanks for your efforts.

user27148: We don't verify the authority of people answering questions, so purported authority/education/experience of the poster are not valid reasons for voting. This is SE Biology, not a US court, and we very much value experience and expertise when they are directed into writing informed answers, but not so much degrees and titles (neither of which contribute to good answers by themselves).
I think you are misunderstanding the reason for downvotes on species ID answers. If you are getting downvotes for "lack of evidence" it's because you haven't explained your answer. That's a general principle that applies to all types of Q&A here. We want detailed answers that educate: explanations of how you know are key to an informative answer, even if it can sometimes be harder for an expert to explain exactly how they identify some species.
It's very common for species ID answers to be at least partly unsure of the exact species.  There's nothing wrong with that; if anything, it's probably much easier for an expert to know how unsure they are. That's almost always sufficient for the people asking the questions, who tend to be a lay audience asking out of curiosity or for practical reasons.

-1: <p>The reputation system used by Stack Exchange to rate replies to questions, and to rate those who provide answers, is based on scores given by editors and users with sufficient reputation points. It is a reasonable approach for technical questions where it is not difficult to provide conclusive answers using reputable information sources, such as official documentation for a computer language.</p>
<p>By contrast, species identification questions that rely solely on a photograph do not fall in the same category. You can not provide conclusive documentation for a photo. You can only provide circumstantial evidence. That means that the quality of putative species identifications is subjective and should not be given the same weight as answers that can be supported by conclusive documentation.</p>
<p>Yet we have people down-voting replies to species IDs because of 'lack of evidence'. Hogwash!</p>
<p>There has been lengthy discussion on Biology meta about the pros and cons of posting species identification questions. But I don't see much discussion about answering such questions. For posters, there are guidelines (e.g. <code>Welcome to Biology.SE! Identifications questions should include...</code>). What about for replies?</p>
<p>I am particularly interested in the question of experts vs laypeople. Here is the issue:</p>
<pre><code>Some species are are well-known to the general public (dogs, cats, goldfish), others to specialists only (insects, amphibians, fungi). 

In these cases, expertise in the particular taxonomic would lend credibility to species identification.

But Stack Exchange permits only circumstantial evidence in species identifications, and provides no avenue for expert opinion.
</code></pre>
<p>The general public and the US court system rely on experts to answer questions regarding species identification. For example, I once provided expert witness testimony on the identification of an insect found in a candy bar. I have two degrees in zoology and a Ph.D. in biology, and have worked as a professional entomologist and as a professional herpetologist. Those credentials are considered sufficient to make me an &quot;expert&quot; and to raise the status of my opinion above the average person. Yet on Stack Exchange, there is no way to distinguish my level of expertise when I identify a specimen from a photo.</p>
<p>To me, the idea that a citation or other information can unequivocally identify a species from a photo alone is ludicrous. Biologists use taxonomic keys or DNA when a conclusive species identification is required. Sure, one could provide evidence based on coloration, pattern, morphology, and size. But 1) individuals of a species show variation in these traits, and 2) such evidence can only suggest an identification, not provide a conclusive answer.</p>
<p>On the other hand, someone with the proper education and years of experience in identifying species from specific taxonomic groups can provide reliable identifications. A grey wolf specialist with 20 years in the field should be considered a reliable source on the identity of a wolf from a photo. Her opinion should be given greater status than someone lacking her background.</p>
<p>I'm sure I am not the first to suggest a system that recognizes education and experience when judging replies to ID questions. The same reasoning could be applied to any of the topical areas of Stack Exchange.</p>
<p>And I realize that I am opening a can of worms just by asking this question. I have only scratched the surface of issues that could be (and perhaps have been) raised.</p>
<p>Still I believe the question merits discussion. Why not include education and experience in reputation scores and when judging the reliability of replies to questions?</p>
 16866: <p>Regardless of your (or anyone's) own legitimacy or expertise, the internet doesn't know that about you (nor should users passing through necessarily <em>believe</em> that to be true about you -- there are plenty of &quot;fake&quot; experts out there). Having a more formal source of info allows users to check in on the legitimacy of something more completely &amp; objectively. It also enables them to use your source as a doorway to learning more about the topic. Take a look through Yahoo answers or Quora and see how many &quot;legitimate&quot; answers from &quot;experts&quot; are wrong -- without regular citing practices, users will never know one way or the other</p>
<p>We want posts to demonstrate your line of thinking. If you're an expert, then expand someone else's understanding. Walk them through your thought process using reputable links, pictures, guides, keys, etc. If you learned to ID something personally using a &quot;<a href="https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/jizz-andor-gestalt" rel="nofollow noreferrer">gestalt</a>&quot; approach, take the time to confirm a resource that backs up what you always believed to be true. Everyone walks away understanding more about the subject organism. No one should believe you just because you're an expert. In the age of internet misinformation, we need to be explicit, demonstrative and well-cited when teaching others</p>
<p>also, certain individuals here <em>have</em> demonstrated themselves to be experts. Often the way you write posts (vocab, resources you link, etc.) paint a picture of who you are as a biologist and where your expertise lies. So, pad your answers with the best evidence you can, do so in an informed and formal manner, answer a few more questions the same way, and you'll certainly pick up a reputation here. You can comment about your expertise in your bio, too, as people will go looking to find out who this new &quot;expert&quot; is that's giving a bunch of good answers ;). Thanks for your efforts.</p>
 27148: <p>We don't verify the authority of people answering questions, so purported authority/education/experience of the poster are not valid reasons for voting. This is SE Biology, not a US court, and we very much value experience and expertise when they are directed into writing informed answers, but not so much degrees and titles (neither of which contribute to good answers by themselves).</p>
<p>I think you are misunderstanding the reason for downvotes on species ID answers. If you are getting downvotes for &quot;lack of evidence&quot; it's because you haven't explained your answer. That's a general principle that applies to all types of Q&amp;A here. We want detailed answers that educate: explanations of <em>how</em> you know are key to an informative answer, <a href="https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/oak" rel="nofollow noreferrer">even if it can sometimes be harder for an expert to explain exactly how they identify some species</a>.</p>
<p>It's very common for species ID answers to be at least partly unsure of the exact species.  There's nothing wrong with that; if anything, it's probably much easier for an expert to know how unsure they are. That's almost always sufficient for the people asking the questions, who tend to be a lay audience asking out of curiosity or for practical reasons.</p>
