A very light research grade

Hi !
I sometimes see research grade obs that, in my opinion, are not very convincing. When an obs is made by an observer who has NO one idea about the species, and then another person gives a first name, the first observer shouldn’ be able to agree…
take this example https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/25945353
The first suggestion is made with the help of computer suggestion. This one seems (I say seems because I am not a specialist at all of these plants…). The second proposition is another species. The first observer is ok (we don’t know why suddenly) : the obs becomes a research grade… but with only one person who is really confident.
I have a lot of examples where the first obs is totally false (often with computer suggestion : some people dont’ even check the range and click for a north american species in Europe…). These obs are research grade when the first observer agrees with another person, even if, from the beginning, he has absolutely no one idea about the name of the taxon !
In my opinion, the observer who did a totally different obs first shoul’nt be able to agree then, or if he could accept, this acceptation shouldn’t be included in the number for a research grade…
Or else, the best solution could be a minimum of 3 persons to become a research grade.



This is fairly well covered in the lengthy topic at:
and perhaps more directly in the topic at:
and comes up in the topic at:
and an associated feature request:

The issue of the number to reach the arbitrary green label comes up often. The catch is that if the threshold is increased, then correcting incorrect IDs made by inactive or nonresponsive users becomes all the more difficult.


Thanks for the link collection @danaleeling; I agree this should conversation would be better continued after reading though the existing topics.