In many cases, no I would not want to
I often use high level ancestor disagreement combined with “No, it’s as good as can be” for blurry/terrible quality pictures that can’t be IDed finer than a general level. Now, as I understand it, I will have reviewed that observation, so it won’t appear in my Needs ID pool even if the ID is changed to some unsupported finer one again, and the “No, it’s as good as can be” will remain, now erroneously. Not a good outcome for situations like this.
That would need another new DQA - ever so politely - too blurry to ID.
Difficult to cover all possible cases.
(I mark as Reviewed and move on - but that doesn’t help future identifiers)
It has been suggested before that the “ID cannot be improved” DQA should be made to work differently, so that it is reset/unchecked when the observation ID changes. It seems like this is the underlying issue here – unlike the other DQA options, it is applied in relation to a particular ID (not features of the observation), but it continues to be active regardless fo what the observation ID is, so it can have effects not intended by the person who clicked the button.
I agree with Chris, and in addition I usually do not identify at a higher level unless I am specifically confident that I will not agree with Genus species or even Genus. If there is a suggestion of Secondgenus secondspecies then I would want to consider it, but that too will constitute a disagreement with Genus species, therefore my first disagreement will be mooted in terms of it being a disagreement.
Shouldn’t this one go to order and not be trapped at subclass given the changes?
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/127019928
And shouldn’t this one still be trapped at order ?
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/149282988
Interestingly, when I add an ID of Stratiomyiidae, it goes to order.
When I add an ID of Brachyceran, it goes to suborder.
EDIT : When I add any ID other than Stratiomyiidae or it’s direct descendants, it follows my suggestion actually. Which makes sense I think ( or more sense than it did before )
First one is broken to my eyes - tagged in loarie. I tried forcing a reindex.
PS untagged him. Disagreement has been withdrawn and ID is now a simple 3 right against 1 wrong.
Second one is
CID at Order
and ‘display ID up top’ at Brachycera.
That is how iNat always worked as intended - but it is confusing to look at.
You have to dig deep on iNat, past - that is not intuitive.
What I struggled with before was the hidden part of Ancestor Disagreement.
We had the visible small print
John disagrees with Species A
What the observer, John and all subsequent identifiers didn’t see - unless they knew to click on What’s This? at CID - was
John also disagrees with Genus B
and Species C
and Family Wotsit
Perhaps for the taxon specialists we need a new personal setting for Ancestor Disagreement?
Personal setting - opt out of changing my hard disagreement to soft when the ID I disagreed with is withdrawn or deleted. Then the rest of us would need small print - John opted out of changing their Ancestor Disagreement
The obs I fought with were
For this obs https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/149282988
Hard disagreement to Diptera would have disagreed with ALL finer Diptera IDs, sight unseen. I struggle to understand why anyone would deliberately want that?
Now - it is counted as a neutral - first ID is to Diptera. The label on the box fits the contents. Working both as intended, and as expected.
Either way the small print remains visible - phycus disagrees with soldier flies
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.