I think I see the problem. You apparently think that Fish ID is about looking at pictures. Actually, it's not. You may have noticed that in the pictures, all the fish are about the same size? And the pictures don't hide so all you can see are their eyes or their tail. And the pictures don't swim away. In fact, the pictures don't swim at all, so one of the best clues is not present. In real life, the class is about how to even find the fish, what is their behavior and habitat as an ID clue, and even time of day. and depth. You can ID all the pictures you want, and do an inept and terrible job on a dive. Looking at pictures is a start, just like looking at a video of someone in sidemount, but getting the rigging and trim right is an in-water skill....like Fish ID.
You can do videos as well, you don't have to get just close up pictures, and you can put photos in size perspective. In fact that is what a good training book or elearning should be doing. Not the crap that most agencies are putting out at the moment.
IMO a course like fish ID is an out of water course. And is a skill learned over a long period.
But hey why don't we just agree to disagree before you get all stressed out.
Yes, but some people enjoy a class setting with an instructor, and are willing to pay for that.
Is that wrong?
Nothing wrong, I just don't feel that stuff like that is the same value as courses that have specific in water exercises that have to be done. So if you are weighing a MSD with what I deem as informal/out of water courses vs classes with specific in water skills like deep, nav, drysuit, et al; I weigh those in water courses as having greater value to the skill of a diver.