Adding nondisagreeing genus ID after a more specific ID was made

A nondisagreeing genus ID (the subject of this discussion) doesn’t get in the way of ID refinements or prolong making an observation become research grade.

5 Likes

I would only put a genus ID if I disagreed with the species ID because doing this implies that you disagree with the species ID.

It does not imply you disagree with species unless you explicitly disagree. You’re assuming an intent that is not intrinsic to just posting a genus after a species. :)

And as has been posted above, nonexplicit disagreements don’t override species IDs when they are on the same branch.

If we’re going to assign a motive, the safe assumption is that nonexplicit disagreements are either only going to the level they are comfortable with, or are that weird glitch where the system keeps auto-adding previous agreements.

While I’ve specifically taken to adding text, because many people make that assumption, I don’t think it’s fair to expect that of anyone else everytime they go to a higher taxon without explicitly disagreeing.

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/8561618
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/18414653
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/18015335

4 Likes

Green or orange buttons?

Hi @bouteloua, I am a new-ish iNat user, but I try to help with IDs when I can. But when I make identifications, I’m not seeing green or orange buttons – just an options to check “Agree” or enter my own identification or a comment. Is this because I’m using iNat on a browser on my desktop computer rather than using the phone app?

Thanks!

1 Like

You see only the buttons when you enter your own ID that is a higher level of existing IDs.

You don’t see it when agreeing or when going to a taxon on a completely different branch.

2 Likes

There’s also the difference between disagreeing with the species identification or disagreeing that the individual observed is actually that species (we can’t tell if it’s that species vs it’s another species but I don’t know which), as @cmcheatle described. There are many people who hold both each interpretation. It’s because the text is ambiguous, in one place it implies one interpretation and in another place it implies the other. That’s mainly why these debates exist.

Personally I will add a non-disagreeing genus ID if I think there’s a decent chance the original ID is correct and I don’t see anything to suggest otherwise, but I can’t personally confirm it confidently (someone else might be able to confirm). Since it basically doesn’t affect the community ID it’s pretty much just saying my opinion, and people can choose to ignore it or change their IDs based on it as they will.
I will add a disagreeing genus ID if I don’t think it’s possible for anyone to identify the organism from the image and I don’t see any indication (from description, comments, etc.) that the observer has more information that they used to ID outside of the photos/audio given. The latter is particularly the case for taxa that people consistently trust the computer vision for when they shouldn’t, so I feel like I can safely assume that their identifications were uneducated (which mostly but not always the case, so a text explanation is good).

4 Likes

5 posts were merged into an existing topic: Change wording used by the system when downgrading an observation to an higher level taxa

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.