Well, there is another way: Use the green button and mark “can the Community Taxon still be confirmed or improved?” as yes. I understand that will also take it out of Research Grade without putting an explicit disagreement with the suggested ID on the observation. In combination with letting the observer know that additional pictures/info would be needed before being able to confirm the ID, I think that would come across as lot less rude than what some people are practicing right now.
In this situation, I have found that when the system inaccurately adds the “disagrees” language to my ID, I can just delete my ID and re-enter it. For some reason the language isn’t added on the second attempt.
2 Likes
Not if there are enough species IDs that a non-dissenting genus ID doesn’t move community ID.
Yes, this is something I was trying to get at earlier in the thread (probably not as clearly).
1 Like
The first one is redundant, since this popup would only appear when you’re adding an ID at a higher level; you’re already not saying it’s White Baneberry. If you’re adding the ID of Baneberries, the question in the popup is “What is your reason for adding a higher-level ID?”, and the options would be something like
- This is the lowest I am comfortable identifying, and it could be White Baneberry" [green]
- It is definitely a member of Baneberries, but the evidence is insufficient to determine if it is White Baneberry [orange]
- It is definitely a member of Baneberries, and the evidence is sufficient to determine it is not White Baneberry [red]
The latter two would both be disagreeing, but could be treated differently for RG or other purposes.
4 Likes
For me, your options 1 and 2 are similar, and only 3 is an actual disagreement. Both 1 and 2 basically say “I can’t confirm this is White Baneberry but it could be” (1 due to personal limitations, 2 due to insufficient evidence), while 3 says “I disagree this is White Baneberry.” Both 2 and 3 could affect Research Grade, but only 3 is an actual disagreement suggesting it has to be something else. Option 2 should instead generate a notification that lets the observer know that the evidence provided is not conclusive to make an ID at species level.
I disagree (though I agree the wording is confusing). IMO, the green agreeing ID is for when the higher taxon is the limit of the identifier’s abilities. Absent an indication that the previous identifier is an expert in the group, I use disagreeing higher level IDs when there I know there is insufficient evidence in the observation to get it to a lower level, even if it could be the taxon it’s at. For example, a plant genus where five related species occur together and can only be distinguished by the flowers, and the photos only show leaves.
1 Like
No, intention of creating agree/disagree option was right to split what you can say about the specimen, if there’s not enough evidence how can you add an id that says it’s not one while it totally can be it? Plus the topic about adding it is still on the forum for those interested.
1 Like
Because you’re not saying it’s not that one, you’re saying the evidence is insufficient. The green button specifically says it’s for when you don’t know if the evidence is sufficient.
We can debate, on the other thread, if the buttons should be changed, but that’s what they say now, so it’s how people are using them. It seems like that is the topic of this thread.
No, I don’t want to debate on something that quite clearly says what it means, insufficient data is not equal to contradicting data, people are using those buttons as they want, mostly for time saving reasons.
No, but iNat still treats it as disagreeing, which is what the discussion about a third option on the other thread is about.
Yes, third option should exists, but for now it doesn’t so when choosing a disagreement now it’s like a deal with the Devil, it’s doing good for community taxon, but not necessary is true, that’s what I’m trying to say.
There is a point to be made. By adding an explicit disagreement at genus level to a RG species when I think that the evidence does not justify a RG rating at species rank, I am adding an inclusive ID that also encompasses that species, along with any others in the genus.
2 Likes
I would like to see the taxonomy tree and add my yes, or no, vote at the point where I want to. One vote which says exactly what I mean.
Kinda, but you still disagree with the species, so basically it says it’s not this species, but one in this genus, that’s what caption says.
Yes.
Generally I use a non-disagreeing higher-level ID with explanation, unless something about the obs makes me think it’s unlikely to be the species posted.
2 Likes
Actually you are not, you are saying (even if it is not your intention), this is any possible member of the genus except the one you identified it as.
2 Likes
The whole point of this (by now very long) thread is that the system doesn’t make any distinction between these two, and in fact explicitly says that insufficient evidence for the species (i.e. what @mftasp is doing) is a disagreeing ID.
Personally, I add a comment saying whether it could be or definitely is not the species given as the previous ID, but it would be nice if the iNat had the distinction built in.
2 Likes
Yes, combining that suggestion (which has been made elsewhere in the forum) with the existing “green button” allows the observer to keep the observation listed as the species they believe they saw while blocking RG. A good choice if the evidence neither confirms nor denies the species-level ID.
A better third option – Michele, would this fit with what you are suggesting? – would be to add a button that doesn’t change the ID but does vote against RG at species level.
The comment box would then say: “Your ID might be right but I don’t think this should become RG unless you can explain how _______ can be ruled out.” If the identifier fills in the blank with at least one taxon, an extra vote will now be needed to reach RG.
Or, the observer respond and convince the identifier to remove the block. For example, in Charlie’s story:
Charlie or someone else could reply that the ID had been confirmed by [the experts]. Or, if the observation showed a bird, the observer might reply “Look, I know it’s not a great photo, but I got a good look at the bird and it had a flycatcher beak that was bi-colored and showed the distinctive pattern on the tailfeathers illustrated in ___.”
I would withdraw my objections in a heartbeat based on either of those replies.
3 Likes
When someone is only offering a genus level, or less specific level, ID, after a species level ID is already assigned to an observation, iNaturalist asks this sometimes misleading question: “Is the evidence provided enough to confirm this is (the prior genus and species ID given, maybe ‘Homo sapiens’)?” Then iNaturalist has a green box labelled "I don’t know, but I’m sure this is a (the potentially disagreeing identifier’s less specific ID, maybe Homo), or a red box labelled “No, but I’m sure it is a member of (his less specific level ID, maybe Homo)”
Some people, especially those who have extensively studied the group in question, interpret the first question as indicating that the person, or people, offering the earlier, more specific ID, need to have shown enough “evidence” to “confirm” (or prove) the ID, then they check the red box, with a comment telling anyone that made the earlier ID that they can’t make their species level ID without doing a genital dissection, or maybe doing a microscopic examination of a given feature, or otherwise using the technique they learned was necessary to identify it by, in some key, or after reading some paper.
By checking the red box they have vetoed the prior ID, without either offering a conflicting ID, or without saying they know the first ID is wrong. I’ve seen more than one of these people going through the ID’s of these, often difficult to distinguish, taxa, in a group they have studied, clicking the red box, vetoing the previous ID without saying they know the ID is wrong, but only saying the other people can’t identify that taxon to species without using the technique they claim is required. This can get the people who made the earlier ID very irritated, when their ID was vetoed, without the person vetoing it being able to dispute their ID.
I would urge iNaturalist to altogether drop the first question “Is the evidence provided enough to confirm this is (the prior genus and species ID given, maybe ‘Homo sapiens’)?” that could imply that anyone with the earlier ID needs to have “provided enough evidence” to “confirm” the ID.
The green box could then read: “I know it is (the less specific ID, eg. genus that new identifier is offering, eg Homo), but I don’t know that it is (the more specific ID, maybe Homo sapiens)”
The red box could then read “I am sure it is not (eg Homo sapiens), but I agree that it is a member of (eg Homo)”.
1 Like