I always double check sizes, physical characteristics, known ranges, behaviors, etc. with whatever info the OP provides in their question (again why asking detailed questions counts!). If something doesn't match well enough, I now have an almost certainly related species to use to start my next narrowed search....
Inherent in this process is coming to recognize which sources are not reputable and therefore avoiding letting such poor-quality resources mislead me. (Hint: just because an image on Google search says it's one species, doesn't mean it actually is that species -- e.g., search "bedbugs" sometime to see Google utterly fail!). Image aggregation sites like Imgur, Pinterest, etc. also are notorious for having mislabeled images, and I'd also be cautious of using Q&A sites or other community identification sites as anything but initial jumping off points -- always corroborate with more reputable sources!
As an aside: I will often try to duplicate my findings from esoteric, print-only, or pay-wall sources with other reputable sources that are freely accessible by the general public (typically digitally). The goal is to provide adequate support without my posts simply citing a bunch of page numbers in hard-to-find sources. I want others to learn more about the specimens in question, so I try to provide a trustworthy roadmap for them. (Often this means linking to wikipedia pages or university extension websites).
