Description of need: A URL like ident_disagreement=true which only shows observations with a disagreement
Feature request details: I generally add broad IDs and clear unknowns to lower the observation to at least order or family level. I have finished all unknowns and all animals down to at least order level in my area and I was looking for new observations to Id. I started checking older observations and saw that most were identified by someone but wasn’t agreed which caused them to be left at a very high-level id and lost in time. Being able to only get observations with a disagreement would help clear those faster.
Uses for this feature would be:
When observer uploads a commonly misidentified species and doesn’t change their id when someone identifies the correct id. Which causes the observation to be lost in time for years.
There are people who go through research grade observations to find mistakes and when they do find one, they make a disagreeing id. Using the URL parameters to get observations with a disagreement and from a specific identifier would make it easier to clear those.
When you know some people who commonly make mistakes.
When certain people make joke ids, you can use URL parameters to find those people and correct their id.
I personally wouldn’t have a use when people disagree and add a kingdom-level id, but having the option would surely benefit some people. The main identify mode doesn’t have that much way to narrow down what you specifically are looking for and these URL parameters are really useful. I don’t see a drawback for this feature except for maybe the difficulty of adding the feature. I’m not really that familiar with the coding aspect. I’d like to know what you think about a feature like this. Would you have a use for this?
When I see someone has made joke IDs, I just go to their profile and from there to their identifications. Would this not work for you? Most joke IDers that I’ve encountered are not prolific IDers, so it’s not a lot to go through, but if that is not your experience I can see where this would be useful.
Yeah, for situations like that going to their profile would be better. It doesn’t happen that often but in instances where a lot of new users appear and star misusing the platform this could maybe be useful. My main point wasn’t that, to be honest.
there are multiple types of disagreements. so instead of just =true/false/any, i think if this were implemented, it should allow differentiation between normal disagreements and (potentially different types of) ancestor disagreements, too.
That’s a great point but I feel like it would complicate the process. As you said all these requests have pros and cons. Specifying which kind of disagreement to show with only 3 or 4 lines of text would be hard. Maybe a more basic version of this can be considered. For example, if the disagreement is on the same tree of life or not.
That’s a great tool but not exactly what I’m looking for. The maverick category only appears when that ID is countered by other IDs. I want to filter observations where there is a disagreement and the community ID is stuck at a very high level
using existing parameters and tools, i think there are only ways to get observations that are likely to have disagreements.
for example, suppose we look at the screenshot in the original post example, and we suppose that the user here wants to follow m_gokmen’s IDs because m_gokmen is a trusted identifier who typically identifies to a low level where possible. if that’s the case, then you could look for observations at a high level (like class) where m_gokmen has made an identification. the resulting set of observations should include a lot of observations that have disagreements: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?lrank=class&ident_user_id=m_gokmen.
We discussed this request and won’t be moving forward with it for the foreseeable future because it would unfortunately require reindexing observations, among other complications. I’m going to close the issue.
For now I’d recommend using @jeanphilippeb’s project, or using the some of the methods @pisum suggested.