But we have Loarie implying above that in the case of “absentee identifiers”, we should only be explicitly disagreeing if the result of dialog amongst the active community supports that position, that the absentee identifier would likely change their position if they were active, or if we are quite sure that the community at large would support that position if a conversation WERE to take place (my interpretation).
I’ll re-quote:
[emphasis mine]
(1) I think Loarie means “identifier” here, sometimes the observer is the identifier in question, but not always.
For the most part I have no problem with needing a few more IDs to get something confirmed to the majority position. However, there are situations where people are bumping back because they can’t see evidence themselves when there are people that clearly can, and then they use that wording of the modal to support their explicit disagreement, despite it being contrary to the positions of the others involved in the conversation. This observation illustrates it well, and also the extent to which it strains the relationships within the community: https://inaturalist.org/observations/11581437
I’m not saying that others are right or wrong with their IDs in this scenario, only that the explicit disagreement to bump back to genus should not be happening when there are identifiers that are confident of their IDs. Clearly they are asserting their IDs, rather than being absent or “over-reaching” with them.
There’s a fine line between “I can’t see enough evidence to convince myself” (subjective) and “sufficient evidence isn’t visible in this photo” (theoretically objective). Ideally less experienced identifiers would have humility and recognize the difference and use the green button in the former case. The orange button is for the latter case (from my interpretation). I think this distinction is particularly relevant for low quality images where there’s disagreement about interpretation of the image, but it also applies to disagreement about the validity of visible ID features.
As far as I can tell in the example observation, both tom_saunders (and stephen_thorpe) and dave_holland (and caseyborowskijr) are confidently asserting their respective IDs. Tom isn’t subjectively disagreeing about interpretation of available evidence, he’s saying that objectively no such evidence exists in the photo (or in any photo of the relevant species without genitalia) so therefore it isn’t identifiable. The orange button is currently the only functional way to express that opinion (and the initial guiding text seems to support that usage). The genus-ID identifier(s) are confident that it’s impossible to identify the photo past genus without genitalia. The species-ID identifiers are confident that it can be identified to species with abdomen pattern. It comes to a vote, just like any ID disagreement on iNat.
dave_holland: These species are very well known in Europe and there are many extremely good reference pics for the males of both species online.
If this is the case, the species-ID identifiers should be able to tag some wasp identifiers from Europe (or another continent where they’re introduced) to get the >2/3 ratio necessary to change the CID if that’s what it takes. Likewise the genus-ID identifiers can try to bring in more identifiers. Conversation is always the best way to resolve ID disagreements but often bringing in more identifers is necessary (e.g. Geralds).
Forgive me if I’ve misinterpreted the comments, and I’m not familiar with the expertise of each identifiers which could shift what appropriate actions might be. There might be other dynamics going on here as well (ideally a less informed identifier would withdraw their orange-disagreement ID if presented with new valid information that allows species ID).
If I add a disagreeing ID, I would like to be able to click (one) thumbs up or down on the list of preceding IDs. Then I could show for example that I, by default, agree with A B and C, but disagree with D.
If I understand things correctly, the argument for having both forms of explicit disagreement under the same button is that they have exactly the same function for the community ID. In either case, the identifier is saying “the observation is of this genus but shouldn’t be identified as that species”.
Let’s say an observer posts a photo of a hawk from North America and identifies it as Northern Goshawk, and then an identifier makes an orange-button-disagreement for Accipiter. From the perspective of the community ID, it doesn’t matter whether the identifier was thinking “this is either a Northern Goshawk or a Cooper’s Hawk but it’s impossible to tell from the photo” or “this is either a Cooper’s Hawk or a Sharp-shinned Hawk but it’s impossible to tell from the photo”; the result is the same.
I guess the question is whether seeing that distinction automatically would be really beneficial for humans looking at the identification thread.
The pop-up is clear that the identifier is considering the evidence provided, not making a judgement whether or not it is definitely is that species. That is, it could be that species, but the evidence provided is insufficient to confirm.
Although the corresponding ID after clicking the orange button would say at the bottom “bouteloua disagrees this is Actaea pachypoda”, that part is incorrectly phrased and I’m surprised the staff have not yet addressed it, considering how much confusion and bad feelings this can cause.
It should instead read, “bouteloua disagrees with the ID Actaea pachypoda”. The latter phrasing covers both cases: it may be that I disagree that it’s that species at all, or that I think an ID to that species is not possible based on the evidence. Or as suggested above, the ID should just say all that, and not worry about being long-winded - “bouteloua disagrees this is Actaea pachypoda or does not believe there is enough evidence to confirm this is Actaea pachypoda”
Haha, I actually saw that one and disagreed with your disagreement since I’m pretty certain it is Actaea pachypoda not realizing you were testing it as an example for the forum. Back on topic, yes there still seems to be a wording issue the way these disagreements are presented on observation pages. Those who are mostly observers and don’t do a lot of identifying probably never see these green and orange buttons and the way they’re worded. They just see the disagreement on their ID. It would be nice to have better wording to avoid misunderstandings.
I was initially very confused by the wording. I always comment when I disagree with an ID, to make it clear to the community whether I think the ID is definitely wrong or just can’t be determined by the evidence provided.
The thing that confused me about the wording for a long time, is that it is phrased as if you are supposed to disagree if you think the evidence is insufficient. For observations where I am specifically able to rule things out, but I don’t have the knowledge to give a positive ID, my natural answer to this question would be, “Yes, the evidence in this photo is enough, and it rules out White Baneberry, but it is a member of Baneberries and Cohoshes.”
I agree that the phrasing should be fixed, but I don’t know why it’s necessary to refer to “evidence” at all. Why couldn’t the question be “Is this White Baneberry,” and have 3 choices in the popup–“Yes, this is White Baneberry,” “No, this is not White Baneberry,” and “Maybe this is White Baneberry, but at least one other possibility cannot be ruled out from the photo(s) and/or audio, and description/notes section.”
It seems like the terms “evidence” and “sufficient/insufficient” might be causing confusion, too, so my point was to make the choices more concrete and less abstract, since the way it shows up on the observation is concrete.
I try to do that, too, and especially on these disagreements where the green/orange buttons pop up. If more people left comments explaining why they’re disagreeing, there would be less confusion.
I think this would be helpful to sort out “this can’t be ID’d to species level” from “it’s not this species.” As it is now, an identifyer may think that they’re picking option 3 (maybe it is this but could also be something else), which then generates a message on the observation that fits option 2 (no it’s not this). The messaging is muddled here.
All the wording changes in the world will have minimal impact as long as the outcome of picking the different options is different. As long as the orange button or the ‘no it is not that’ or whatever it says is effectively a super vote that removes things that are indeterminate from research grade, people will use that choice.
It makes a difference to me as an observer receiving these notifications. If it says someone disagrees with my species ID, my reaction is usually to ask why they think it can be ruled out. It’s frustrating to learn that the answer is “oh no, I didn’t mean to say that, I just think this can’t be ID’d to species level.” I’ve been known to revisit plants to take additional pictures to clarify IDs, but if it is truly a straight-up “no, it’s not this because…” then there’s no point doing that.
I understand the benefit to the observer, I’m commenting on the behaviour of the identifier. There are plenty of identifiers who are fully aware of the intended difference between the 2 buttons, but always use the orange one because that is the one that removes it from research grade which is their objective.
Change the wording, they still have the same objective and will still pick the option that delivers that objective. The observer just gets a differently worded message that may or may not reflect the reality of their observation.
