On the Data Quality Assessment it says “Based on the evidence, can the Community Taxon still be confirmed or improved?”
I’ve used this feature many times as there are some instances where it just makes sense to tick “no”. An example would be if there are two species of mushroom which cannot be distinguished as they look the same. They share a genus so a genus level ID is going to be correct, but the species cannot be identified without microscope photos. In this instance I will ID the mushroom to genus level and then tick no on the data quality assessment qualification above. This gives the observation research grade, but for the genus level rather than as a species.
This had worked well for me for quite some time and I have seen other users utilizing this feature the same way I do (I’m fairly certain I learnt it from seeing others use it that way). It seems far more logical than using the “complex” system, which I find unclear and poorly implemented.
Recently however I noticed that another user had ticked “No” on “Based on the evidence, can the Community Taxon still be confirmed or improved?”, which was my standard practice with such observations. The issue? The observation reached research grade, but then the observer wasn’t happy with the genus level ID so incorrectly bumped it up to species… The result? An incorrect species level ID was added to an observation and reached research grade after only 1 species level ID.
This isn’t good in my opinion and if I hadn’t have caught it I wouldn’t have realized the flaw in this system. I know people sometimes use “complex” to ID things, but I have issues with how poorly implemented that feature is on the website so I don’t know how to remedy this.
I just thought I’d bring it up somewhere and see if anyone else has experienced this or knows how to better remedy the issue? Surely adding a single species level ID shouldn’t make the research grade genus level observation into a species level research grade observation???
Make sure you check the Community Taxon (~consensus) box: this is what gets “Research Grade” status.
(The “more refined taxon” that may be shown as title and in big fat characters at the top of the obs page, even if next to the green RG ribbon, is NOT what gets vetted – and exported – as RG. Misleading, I know.)
The observer posted their observation identified to genus. Another identifier agreed with the genus level ID and ticked “no” where it says “Based on the evidence, can the Community Taxon still be confirmed or improved?” This bumped the genus level observation up to research grade.
The observer then wasn’t happy with the genus level ID, so then identified it to species level. The species they chose was within the same genus, which meant the observation changed to a research grade observation for said species.
I guess what I’m trying to say is I see an issue with this feature. I think the tick a user leaves on an observation to give it research grade should have been automatically removed if a user takes the ID further, after another had already ticked that the ID cannot go any further.
The way this works is very confusing. I wish these leading IDs or whatever they are officially called would be deprioritized in the gui and removed from the map by default.
They’re useful for IDing but pretty useless in most other contexts, given how accurate they tend to be.
Yep, this is confusing, misleading, suboptimal… I fear there is no easy or perfect solution… Also the terminology (‘Community’, ‘Leading’) and calculation are a bit puzzling…
ID1: Genus Genus
ID2: Genus Genus
[check ‘Can not be improved’]
→ gets RG greenlight
→ Page title: Genus Genus; Community taxon: Genus Genus
→ Mapped: RG pinpoint + reads ‘Genus Genus’
→ RGed and Exported: ‘Genus Genus’
ID3: Genus specificus
→ still RG greenlight
→ Page title: Genus specificus; Community taxon: Genus Genus
→ Mapped: still RG pinpoint + reads ‘Genus specificus’
→ RGed and Exported: ‘Genus Genus’
The map correctly displays a RG pinpoint (meaning that the point gets exported, which is true), and also correctly shows the most “current”/refined/leading(?) ID as for any other point (RG or not).
To sum it up: the genus-level research-grade ID is not overturned but rather “overprinted” by some later species-level name.
edit: what I summarized is wrong! but there are long-standing bug reports/feature requests to have it corrected, see later posts in this thread
In addition to identifier-skill and knowledge of the genus, another issue fundamental to determining whether or not the ID can be improved is what information the observer has that may not be available to the other viewers.
Plants have the endearing quality of standing still for long periods. The ability to identify a specimen that is already recorded in greater detail, perhaps in other obervation/s iNat, in addition to any identifying marks and the context vegetation, and any visual, tactile, taste or smell inspection which has not been recorded in the observation, may allow the observer to identify to species where others cannot, making it possible to document changes in the specimen and its condition over time.
Occasionally I have had an identifier state that my ID cannot be confirmed or improved, sometimes for reasons similar to those discussion in the leading post here.
This is occasionally problematic when my data loses detail due to a species ID being lost from searches, due to the identifier deciding my ID for that observation should not stand.
I understand that there are many uses for iNat, and all of them depend on absolute integrity of the data or awareness of its limitation, and I am always happy to answer queries about each record, to learn more about the features involved in ID, and to make any changes required to improve that integrity.
I realize this is more a Plants thing, but it is important to remember the live observer.
Actually from what I understand, the ID that is exported is the observation ID – so your ‘Genus specificus’ in such cases.
So for all practical purposes (searching, export, etc.) the observation is treated as though it is RG at species, even if the community taxon tab suggests otherwise. There are some previous forum discussions on this and other issues with how the “ID cannot be improved” button works, which I cannot quickly find at the moment.
IDers can only assess observations based on the information provided. If the observer has more evidence than is included in the media alone, it is in their interest to communicate this – e.g. by putting it in their notes, or linking to subsequent observations of the same individual, etc.
I have found that most IDers are willing to take such information into account and assess it for plausibility the same as for photo/audio evidence. There may be a few IDers who are unwilling to consider evidence not included in the media, but even then, most of the time my experience has been that they will add a higher level non-disagreeing ID in such cases rather than actively disagreeing.
I do think that the box should be automatically unselected if someone adds a finer ID - or at least if the community taxon changes. It’s a separate problem that so many institutions mistakenly download the observation taxon rather than the community taxon anyway. Also frustrating.
(sarcasm: ) This is good news! I can now single-handedly upgrade some (genus-level RG) observations to the species/subspecies/variety rank I like at GBIF - without even needing a second opinion supporting my crazy IDs!
You’ve hit the nail on the head. I notice that some identifiers seem to be using this as a shady tactic to bypass being questioned for their actions/decisions (due to the lack of notifications), and then subsequently “justifying” it by saying “that’s how I like to use the platform”
(to be clear i’m referring to users who simply check the boxes in the DQA without leaving any IDs and/or comments. And yes, i have come across at least one such user)
