We're a little fussy, eh? Anywhere near 90% seems incredibly high to me. Plant@Net did well in another rating and is one I've been using on my desktop. Some queries have been totally off the mark, but on others I have either got the ID or got a good lead from the results that came up. As the article notes, so many plants on the internet are mislabeled, and the apps learn by what they find on the internet, so it's not surprising that that they could be quite inaccurate.
As I remember the report from elsewhere, it was most concerned about the risks of endangered species being overlooked as something commoner, leading to the danger of these being lost to development permitted based on there being "no important plants present". While 90% may seem high, I'd expect a competent field botanist to score a lot higher, probably over 98-99%, and in particular being aware of, and able to pick out, the plants that are important to protect.
