Platform: Website Browser: Chrome **URL: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/174162845 Screenshots of what you are seeing: [image] Description of problem: The top suggestion is not in the indicated genus.

Without location information, the CV thinks your observation is most likely to be either Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus or Hemerocallis minor . The ‘we’re pretty sure’ recommendation does not consider location so it suggests Hemerocallis. You have ‘only show seen nearby’ checked. Hemerocallis minor ha…

[image] wildskyflower: Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus has been observed within 2 kilometers of the location of this observation in the same week of the year, so I am confused why it would not be listed in ‘seen nearby’. Those aren’t RG observations, which is what Seen Nearby uses .

I have never seen the suggestion algorithm contradict itself like this.

Here’s what it looks like if you turn off the “Seen Nearby” filter: [image] So the list above is ranked by visual similarity only. You’ll see it thinks the two Hermerocallis species are what it considers the most visually similar. As @wildskyflower says, the “We’re pretty sure this is in the gen…

Vermont has about 114 inat observations per square mile; out here in Montana where we have 1.8 observations per square mile so you get used to ‘seen nearby’ not being trustworthy. [image] tiwane: As @wildskyflower says, the “We’re pretty sure this is in the genus” suggestion is only using visua…

[image] trscavo: Description of problem: The top suggestion is not in the indicated genus. This often happens, if this is a bug I support it.

It seems to me that there’s a UI design problem here where the “We’re pretty sure” suggestion ignores the “only show seen nearby” preference, therefore leading to an apparent contradiction. It could be fixed by making the “We’re pretty sure” suggestion also honor the “only show seen nearby” prefere…

It looks like this, but ‘this’ is not seen here - is a definite conflict of common sense. Ploughing thru the South African Pre-Mavericks to sort out, no, not Siberian, or Californian or … For newbies - pretty sure - sounds like this is the right choice. Click. :slightly_smiling_face:

Would “not yet recorded nearby” work better? Or do you think the “We’re pretty sure” choice should not be shown if the taxa hasn’t been RG-observed nearby?

I’m not American and at first I thought - pretty sure - was emphatic. Definitely this! But I am coming round to - it is meant to express a degree of uncertainty? But then that is getting lost in translation. And English is my first language. I would like an obvious gap between - seen nearby, looks…

Algorithm suggests unexpected taxon

Bug Reports

optilete July 23, 2023, 2:26pm 18

If you want to translate ‘‘We’re pretty sure it is in the genus’’ is important to know what exactly is mentioned with this line… I found out yesterday…

Topic		Replies	Views
Confusing algorithm suggestions General	10	569	March 6, 2022
Out-of-taxon suggestions from visually-similar search with taxonomic restriction Bug Reports	17	1608	October 5, 2020
Taxon suggested that is not expected nearby iNaturalist Next Bug Reports issue-made	2	163	September 24, 2024
Is there a description of how Seen Nearby should work? General	20	1333	September 21, 2023
Computer Vision top species suggestion doesn't match 'pretty sure' genus suggestion Bug Reports android-app	7	183	February 13, 2026

Algorithm suggests unexpected taxon

Related topics