Automatically unmark a previously reviewed observation if a subsequent ID that disagrees with the community ID is suggested

This is for those of us who mark observations as reviewed if the community ID is correct/identified to an acceptable level. However, there have been a few instances where a differing, sometimes incorrect ID is added after the observation has been marked as reviewed, resulting in an incorrect community ID which will not be detected easily unless one goes through their reviewed observations. This feature is to facilitate the detection of such “changes” to the IDs of observations that have already been reviewed, so that if the subsequent IDs added are incorrect, they can be quickly rectified

Alternatively, it would be equally as good if there was a way of showing which observations that have already been marked as reviewed have since undergone a change to their community IDs

I think this is a great idea. I recently noticed the problem, too - if I identify an Unknown as, say, a fungus, then someone else comes along and says it’s a slime mold, I will get a notification but might not remember to check it. If I then go through the observations of Life with disagreements, it won’t show up.


I really like this idea!

I review a lot of obs that I’ll never add an ID to, and never want to see in my identify page again. Are you saying it should unmark as reviewed whether or not you’ve yet added an ID?


Can you give a specific example of something you

Most things I review without adding an ID to are things I can’t identify further than they already have been, but I would be interested in seeing them again if disagreement occurs. Maybe this could be an opt-out setting (as in, it automatically takes effect, but you can choose not to have it on your IDs).

1 Like

With personal settings to opt in (for me), or opt out for bouteloua


yeah looks like I have almost 70,000 reviewed obs unIDed by me that I definitely don’t want to see in identify anymore :) Browsing through, some of them are:

obs I marked captive/cultivated
obs where I addressed a data quality issue
obs in Unknown or state of matter Life that I have no idea on an ID and don’t care to see anymore
obs where I withdrew an ID and didn’t feel like adding a new one
my own obs I didn’t feel like IDing
obs I reviewed for ID accuracy and didn’t care at the time to add my own ID
lots of obs I just don’t want to see anymore because they’re not identifiable by me, and i already know i’m not interested in getting updates on them. If I were, I would click to follow for new IDs or comments.


Same here. I’d estimate I have about 50000 of those. I’d hate it if hundreds or even thousands of those turned up in my pool again.


Not perfect, but how about sorting your reviewed and unIDed Identify page observations by date updated?


I see what you mean. I too have many observations i don’t want to see again and this could be a problem if they get unmarked. Maybe it would be good to have a custom setting to allow the user to choose which taxa they want unmarked for re-review and which ones they want to ignore, kinda like another filter

My Dashboard notification settings (for the top right speech icon) are currently set to notify of disagreeing IDs. I assumed this includes giving notifications for ID disagreements even if an obs. is reviewed? (if yes, I’d think this request isn’t needed)


Yes it does, but it sounds like the original poster wanted to see observations on which they have no ID.


Okay, I see. I understand that by adding this request some extra information or options would be allowed, but I don’t think the need is especially strong, and it would create many complications too. Overall I think many users just wouldn’t need or notice the results of this change.

1 Like

I have so many reviewed observations I never want to see again, I have a completely different feature request about it


[Edited to fix a misunderstanding of mine.]

I have two suggestions:

1. Add your own IDs, then iNat will automatically notify you.

It’s great that people are looking at existing iNat observations to decide of they’re correctly identified. If that’s the case, why not tap “A” to agree with the community ID? You’ve put in the effort to check that ID and there’s real value in that. Plus, iNat will automatically mark the observation as Reviewed and automatically set you up to Follow the observation. Then, if the observation gets a new ID you’ll get a notification.

[Caveat: I realize that there only a couple options for the type of identifications you’re notified about. It would be great to have more flexibility there.]

I realize that some people don’t like the idea of “piling on” with confirming IDs, but I’m not really sure why they feel it’s a problem if you have genuinely reviewed the Identification. For me, checking Reviewed without adding an ID is a way to prevent no-photo and multiple-photo observations from clogging my future search results.

2.\ You can use the Follow functionality even if you don’t add an ID

Screen Shot 2021-10-15 at 12.38.11 PM

Then you’ll get notifications about any new IDs for that observation. Yes, it still doesn’t give you an option to discriminate diverging IDs, which would be great. But it’s available for anyone who wants to track an observation that they chose not to ID.


Yes, this is only when you give an ID to an observation. But what if i don’t want to give an ID to everything i see? This is a personal preference of mine but i only give IDs when the community taxon can be improved to a finer level or if it is blatantly wrong- i don’t normally give agreeing IDs to observations that already have correct IDs because i don’t believe i should waste my time repeating correct information that others have already given (unless someone tags me for my opinion; again, a personal preference)

So the purpose of this request is for observations that i don’t give IDs to which i have still marked as reviewed to reduce my needs ID pile

Thanks, but please see my response to @brian_d

I think both of your suggestions make sense, but they both require me to do extra work (give an ID every single time, predict/anticipate which observations will likely have a change in ID in the future etc… it seems a bit impractical… to me at least)

I should stress that i’m not one of those identifiers who clicks the agree button on everything i see, otherwise i would definitely get notifications and wouldn’t need to create this thread

1 Like

That’s right

I’d like this if it only marked it as unreviewed if the new ID actually changed the status. It would help me keep track of the cicadas I work on to see if something gets changed; ie moved up to a higher level of taxonomy, or taken out of research grade.
Lots of good thoughts and points on this thread, but this is a version that I would find particularly useful, especially if you could also opt out in the settings so @bouteloua and others who have reviewed massive numbers don’t get flooded.


What’s the url to exclude those ided by you?