Change wording used by the system when downgrading an observation to an higher level taxa

Feature Requests
248

Clarification

I’m here because another thread was merged into this one.

Suggestion

The wording of the “Potential Disagreement” prompt is incredibly misleading!
It’s in dire need of rephrasing into something like:

Thank you for your suggestion!
Do you think the evidence presented in the observation could allow a more specific identification by someone in the future?

  • Yes
  • No

Bold formatting for emphasis of prompt elements I consider important. With formatting itself not necessarily being part of my suggestion.

Critique

As it currently stands:

Is the evidence provided enough to confirm this is %PRIOR_TAXON%

  • I don’t know but I am sure this is %CHOSEN_TAXON%
  • No, but it is a member of %CHOSEN_TAXON%

The prompt is:

  1. Complicated by verbosity, stuffing giblets of the intended question into the answers.
  2. Inconsistent, since the single subject of an observation would have to be a “member of” a non-species taxon in both cases but only one option uses that wording, leaving the user to wonder if this is the dubious distinction being inquired of them.
  3. Confusing, as the options read like two phrasings of the same exact sentiment if you approach it as a communal scientific effort. The “No, but” of the latter option is easily interpreted as still implied with a degree of uncertainty, especially after being primed by the “I don’t know” wording of the former. See gripe #1.

Furthermore, there are cases where you expressly intend to disagree with a more specific prior identification, are sure of a less specific taxon belonging and do know that the evidence present is enough for further identification to a more specific taxon but aren’t able to provide such yourself.
The technical effect of choosing the former option does what you want but its usage of “I don’t know” comes into conflict with your position.
Neither of the options is phrased to fit this scenario notionally and leave the user (that’s me :wave:) in an irritating stalemate.

I believe that my suggestion at the top addresses all of these issues with proper conveyance of reasonable degree of confidence, while also signalling the technical substance of the decision being made instead of inferring it.

P. S.

I also believe it’s better to deal away with coloring of the buttons altogether, and I get that this is a vibe-based opinion, but it makes the user worry that their suggestion will be rejected by the platform if they display misunderstanding of the rules they suspect having missed due to the sheer mind-boggling confusion of this misleading prompt.

Also, I just changed “down the line” into “by someone in the future” as it conveys what I meant with the former but I now realize that the idiomatic nature of the former wording may require unreasonable linguistic aptitude of some of our multicultural platform’s users.