Proposal: Imagine all identifications given to an observation. Make a tree out of them, and navigate the tree by picking the branch with most support until no branch is supported by greater than [insert cutoff]. Stop here for the CID. For the Observation ID proceed if the branches don’t actually b…

[image] tchakamaura: There is no erasure of ‘maverick’ id’s [image] tchakamaura: Yes, there are difference w/ CID if your proposed algorithm produces a different community ID than the existing algorithm, then your algorithm effectively erases the the maverick ID, since in your proposed…

[image] DianaStuder: What iNat calls a Maverick ID - has been swept aside by the CID. A Maverick ID has no effect. This is not correct. In the example bat, bird,bird,bird,sparrow,sparrow bat is maverick but still weighed against sparrow Here is an actual example and it’s algorithm summar…

[image] pisum: if your proposed algorithm produces a different community ID than the existing algorithm, then your algorithm effectively erases the the maverick ID, since in your proposed algorithm, it would be removed from the final community ID calculation I feel use of the word erase here …

[image] sbushes: I feel use of the word erase here is a bit misleading. ok. what’s a better word or phrase? the effect is still the same. any version of a funneling algorithm, even if there’s only one pass, removes the effect of the maverick ID during the community ID calculation right? read…

[image] pisum: what’s a better word or phrase? Discounts. [image] pisum: to force observation Similarly here. These terms are actively framing adjustment to the algorithm in an unnecessarily negative / inaccurate light. There is no “force” in the suggested change, any more than the e…

[image] sbushes: you didn’t respond to the comment I tagged you in as in the previous thread, you’re focusing on the benefit for your particular case and completely discounting the negative effects for other cases. my answer for you is the same here as it was in the last thread: [image] p…

[image] sbushes: These terms are actively framing adjustment to the algorithm in an unnecessarily negative / inaccurate light. There is no “force” in the suggested change, any more than the existing algorithm forces one thing over another. For me I would say the existing algorithm “forces” a mor…

[image] sbushes: Surely at some point there has to be a cut-off for you where it goes sooo far beyond the realms of logic it’s not worth entertaining? There’s no cutoff. Imagine all identifications given to an observation. Make a tree out of them, and navigate the tree by picking the branch …

Even without the Diptera ID the only consensus is 4 at Not A Fly superfamily. But without the Diptera it would show a display ID (up top) at Genus - and still with the discreet CID on the right column determinedly staying at superfamily consensus. If you @mention successfully for a third ID at fa…

[image] pisum: if you have 1 Red-winged Blackbird, 1 New World Sparrow, and 2 Savannah Sparrow, the best approach should give you a community ID of New World Sparrow because it should be evaluating 3 New World Sparrow vs 1 Red-winged Blackbird. It would be wrong to make this a research grade Sav…

Change how id's work when there are disagreements

General

Topic		Replies	Views
Community taxon algorithm tweaks General	47	2255	March 6, 2022
Ancestor disagreement shouldn't necessarily disagree with child taxon just because it contains descendant Feature Requests	20	652	March 14, 2025
CID more than 2 thirds algorithm General	20	772	June 8, 2023
Change wording used by the system when downgrading an observation to an higher level taxa Feature Requests	253	20088	December 29, 2024
Problems with wrong suggestions General	30	3461	May 6, 2020

Change how id's work when there are disagreements

Related topics