user3827: We have had discussions about this before (the linked post mentions several other, even older posts), but I think it is time for another revamp.

We have an increasing number of species ID questions which show no previous research (and in some cases no will to do any research) at all. While I generally love those questions as little puzzles, this does get annoying over time. I try to remind people of doing their own research, but at some point, one is tempted to just downvote or even flag. This would send the wrong message to other people trying to have something identified, though. I do not want to discourage this type of questions, I do not even want to discourage multiple ones from the same person, but I feel like there needs to be a threshold for "previous research" and "trivial ID" (a very common species). Is there anything we can do?
We also have an increasing number of species ID questions which are closed as duplicates. This is somewhat understandable if they at least get answered before/while closing them. Yes, we have had a question for the same/ a similar species before. But how should the person asking find that duplicate? If they don't know the name of their species and are unable to find it using google, how should they find out someone uploaded a similar picture here in a question? I somehow feel that species ID does not have duplicates, in the same way other types of questions do. Should we really close them as duplicates (unless of course, it is the same question by the same person reposted)? And if so, which question should be the duplicate? Sometimes a new version gets a more in detail answer.

And then in the end: While they are nice puzzles that I would miss if they were not there, is this platform really the right location for this type of questions? Do we want to be drowned in them? Do we maybe need SpeciesID SE?

user6928: Closing as a duplicate is very different from other closure reasons. All the other closure reasons are "Your question is some kind of bad." Closing as a duplicate is "Your question is good: in particular, we already have answers to it."
If a question is a duplicate, it should be closed as one. It doesn't matter that the asker had no way of finding the duplicate: we found it for them. Closing as a duplicate helps the asker because it means we're linking them in to the existing high-quality answers we have available, already voted on, with the cream already floated to the top. It also helps people who access the site via search engines by helping them navigate through multiple similar-looking pages (and probably boosting the search engine ranking of the original question compared to the duplicates).

user27148: I'll mostly just address your point #2 here, I'll let others weigh in on #1.
I'm not as concerned as you with closing as duplicates being a problem. In my opinion, the purpose of closing as duplicate is to direct the question asker to the original question, and to prevent clutter on the site. I don't think of closing as duplicate as punishment to the asker or necessarily saying their question is bad. Their question might be very well stated or better than the original, and that's okay.
However, if the new question is getting better answers than the old one, that's more of a problem with the answerer. The answerer knows the species, and they should do at least a cursory search for a duplicate. If they have a better answer to provide, they should still answer the original question and vote to close the new one.

user16866: 1
I agree that species-identification questions are coming in with clearly no research effort. To be honest, I've noticed this for a while and wanted to propose we "crack down" harder on species-identification questions like we do with other tags, but I was conflicted b/c I enjoy the steady flow of  puzzles  questions ;). 

However, I think most of us are aware that even with prior research, those askers are almost certainly to end up in 1 of 2 [undesirable] situations:

Find an answer that they are satisfied with elsewhere (i.e., another website) and not even bother posting here.
Search through dozens of websites that frequently provide incorrect identifications and get "lost" in the inconsistencies of unresearched/unreferenced websites. 

Google image searches really only works for those of us that know enough about the taxa we're searching to not fall into these "traps."



As a result, I think it is very difficult for us to increase our level of expected research input from users asking species-identification questions. 

However, I think that we should do something to deter instances such as the one that almost certainly prompted this meta post (i.e., single user asking many simple non-researched questions, especially in a single taxa).

In this case, I don't think it's fair to downvote questions if they are not fundementally worse than the average species-identification question. Downvoting simply because we are annoyed with that user is against our policies and should be discouraged. 
However, I think flagging this individual or others like them that are basically abusing our time/expertise would be appropriate. 

Moderators should suggest to them that they should try to learn to ID these specimens on their own (e.g., via field guides, floras, workshops, course work, etc.). The mod should inform them that they've asked too many un-researched related questions and should suggest that if they don't reduce their habit they will be suspended as being abusive. 



2
I agree with @BryanKrause's answer that duplicates are not necessarily a bad hting and marking a question as such is helpful not punishment. However, I agree it would be helpful to have a way for users to search previous questions more easily. As for a more practical (but less likely) solution

In response to the Redesigning Biology Stack Exchange Meta post, I proposed that we create the Ability to search Species ID posts using Pictures.  



3827: <p>We have had discussions about this <a href="https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/745/species-identification-re-animated">before</a> (the linked post mentions several other, even older posts), but I think it is time for another revamp.</p>

<ol>
<li>We have an increasing number of species ID questions which show no previous research (and in some cases no will to do any research) at all. While I generally love those questions as little puzzles, this does get annoying over time. I try to remind people of doing their own research, but at some point, one is tempted to just downvote or even flag. This would send the wrong message to other people trying to have something identified, though. I do not want to discourage this type of questions, I do not even want to discourage multiple ones from the same person, but I feel like there needs to be a threshold for "previous research" and "trivial ID" (a very common species). Is there anything we can do?</li>
<li>We also have an increasing number of species ID questions which are closed as duplicates. This is somewhat understandable if they at least get answered before/while closing them. Yes, we have had a question for the same/ a similar species before. But how should the person asking find that duplicate? If they don't know the name of their species and are unable to find it using google, how should they find out someone uploaded a similar picture here in a question? I somehow feel that species ID does not have duplicates, in the same way other types of questions do. Should we really close them as duplicates (unless of course, it is the same question by the same person reposted)? And if so, which question should be the duplicate? Sometimes a new version gets a more in detail answer.</li>
</ol>

<p>And then in the end: While they are nice puzzles that I would miss if they were not there, is this platform really the right location for this type of questions? Do we want to be drowned in them? Do we maybe need SpeciesID SE?</p>
 6928: <p>Closing as a duplicate is very different from other closure reasons. All the other closure reasons are "Your question is some kind of bad." Closing as a duplicate is "Your question is good: in particular, we already have answers to it."</p>

<p>If a question is a duplicate, it should be closed as one. It doesn't matter that the asker had no way of finding the duplicate: we found it for them. Closing as a duplicate <em>helps</em> the asker because it means we're linking them in to the existing high-quality answers we have available, already voted on, with the cream already floated to the top. It also helps people who access the site via search engines by helping them navigate through multiple similar-looking pages (and probably boosting the search engine ranking of the original question compared to the duplicates).</p>
 27148: <p>I'll mostly just address your point #2 here, I'll let others weigh in on #1.</p>

<p>I'm not as concerned as you with closing as duplicates being a problem. In my opinion, the purpose of closing as duplicate is to direct the question asker to the original question, and to prevent clutter on the site. I don't think of closing as duplicate as punishment to the asker or necessarily saying their question is bad. Their question might be very well stated or better than the original, and that's okay.</p>

<p>However, if the new question is getting better answers than the old one, that's more of a problem with the answerer. The answerer <em>knows</em> the species, and they should do at least a cursory search for a duplicate. If they have a better answer to provide, they should still answer the original question and vote to close the new one.</p>
 16866: <h2>1</h2>

<p>I agree that <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/species-identification" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;species-identification&#39;" rel="tag">species-identification</a> questions are coming in with clearly no research effort. To be honest, I've noticed this for a while and wanted to propose we "crack down" harder on <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/species-identification" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;species-identification&#39;" rel="tag">species-identification</a> questions like we do with other tags, but I was conflicted b/c I enjoy the steady flow of <s> puzzles </s> questions ;). </p>

<ul>
<li><p>However, I think most of us are aware that <strong><em>even with prior research</em></strong>, those askers are almost certainly to end up in 1 of 2 [undesirable] situations:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Find an answer that they are satisfied with elsewhere (i.e., another website) and not even bother posting here.</p></li>
<li><p>Search through dozens of websites that <em>frequently</em> provide incorrect identifications and get "lost" in the inconsistencies of unresearched/unreferenced websites. </p>

<ul>
<li>Google image searches <em>really</em> only works for those of us that know enough about the taxa we're searching to not fall into these "traps."</li>
</ul></li>
</ol></li>
</ul>

<p>As a result, I think it is very difficult for us to increase our level of expected research input from users asking <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/species-identification" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;species-identification&#39;" rel="tag">species-identification</a> questions. </p>

<ul>
<li><p>However, I think that we <em>should</em> do something to deter instances such as the one that almost certainly prompted this meta post (i.e., single user asking many simple non-researched questions, especially in a single taxa).</p>

<ul>
<li><p>In this case, I don't think it's fair to downvote questions if they are not fundementally worse than the average <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/species-identification" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;species-identification&#39;" rel="tag">species-identification</a> question. Downvoting simply because we are annoyed with that user is against our policies and should be discouraged. </p></li>
<li><p>However, I think flagging this individual or others like them that are basically <em>abusing</em> our time/expertise would be appropriate. </p>

<ul>
<li>Moderators should suggest to them that they should try to learn to ID these specimens on their own (e.g., via field guides, floras, workshops, course work, etc.). The mod should inform them that they've asked too many un-researched related questions and should suggest that if they don't reduce their habit they will be suspended as being abusive. </li>
</ul></li>
</ul></li>
</ul>

<h2>2</h2>

<p>I agree with @BryanKrause's <a href="https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/a/3668/16866">answer</a> that duplicates are not necessarily a bad hting and marking a question as such is helpful not punishment. However, I agree it would be helpful to have a way for users to search previous questions more easily. As for a more practical (but less likely) solution</p>

<ul>
<li><p>In response to the <a href="https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3636/16866">Redesigning Biology Stack Exchange</a> Meta post, I proposed that we create the <a href="https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/a/3652/16866">Ability to search Species ID posts using Pictures</a>.  </p>

<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/P9ZAf.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/P9ZAf.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p></li>
</ul>
