If I may, I would like to add a few thoughts.
First, I feel that nobody should feel badly or be ashamed for any misidentification! Birders should not be discouraged by mistakes. We all make them; nobody is born with the knowledge to identify each bird correct.
We all learn from our mistakes and learning is something that ought to be stimulated. It is one of the nice things of birding: you'll become better by the years and after each mistake.
But there is indeed also another point to make. I think there is more fun in identifying a bird by yourself first, than just put a picture on a forum and wait for an answer. Of course, sometimes people have no idea what they saw, even though it is pretty straightforward to others.
That brings me to yet another point and that is that only a picture can be just a part of the identification story, but sometimes far from the whole story. I think it's a good idea to encourage birders/photographers not only to shoot some pics, but pay attention to other things (and perhaps share them on the forum when they post a picture). Such as sound, behaviour, habitat and characters that are not visible on the photograph. I think it's fair to say that some pictures here do not tell the whole story - even sometimes not enough for a final and correct identification.
Besides, do not only look at a drawing in a field guide or a book, but read the text too. It may prevent an error.
To look for all characters and elements will probably also improve birders to develop their knowledge and especially their identification skills.
Apart from that, birders who post their picture do not always get the right answer. I mean that in this example of the presumed Snowy-browed Flycatcher that is a Stejneger's Stonechat, does this birder now know why it is not the former and is the latter? In my view, no. And I suppose many will share that answer.
Of course, maybe not everybody has all the time to explain every ID in detail, but by just giving the correct name of the species, we do other birders not really a favor. How can we expect any birder to try to work out an ID by themselves, as only the correct name is given and not WHY it is that species.
If every time the characters of a Stejneger's Stonechat would be mentioned, maybe people would get to know this bird much better.
By the way, summing up all the characters that identify a species, is a welcome exercise for any birder who provides the answer, I guess. At least for me ;-)
Cheers,
Bart
