Verifying Yorkshire fungus records for some days now, and got through the first thousand or so. The taxonomy of many fungal groups is in a state of flux at the moment with revisions even at quite a high taxonomic level following molecular studies. So I quite accept that the species dictionary will in some areas be lagging behind; as long as entries are unambiguous I don't have any quinbbles there.
The habitats offered seem so broad brush as to be almost meaningless. Clearly contributors shouldn't be faced with the National Vegetation Classification, but something hierarchical like the old Phase I system would be better?
From a mycological point of view the lack of an Associated Species field is annoying. Particularly with plant parasites knowing the host / substrate genus, and often the species is critical. Having to delve into the comments to see if anything has been entered is irksome and slows things down. Often there isn't anything in the comments, perhaps contributors suppose that a photograph (if there indeed is one) will suffice, but this isn't always easy when presented with part of an infected leaf etc. Also such a field would act as a prompt for contributors to enter a host / substrate?
Finally is there a way to link iRecords with their iNaturalist equivalents? I have some records where there is an image on the latter, but not on the former and it is impossible to work out which is the equivalent record when grid references and dates are exactly the same.
I hope the above doesn't appear too negative and apologise if some of the points have been raised (and responded to) before.