i’m not using the extension myself, but it looks like the raw scores are different than how i remember they were in the past. if i remember correctly:
- for species-level suggestions, there was a vision score, which was the raw score based on visual match only, and then there was also a combined score, which was the vision match score adjusted for a nearby factor. if i remember correctly, vision score and combined scores were would have been normalized / scaled so if you summed up each of these scores for all the suggestions, you would get 100.
- at a higher-than-species level, there was also a score that represented the summed species-level combined scores associated with the higher-than-species taxon.
what i’m seeing now is different from what i remember in two ways:
- the species level combined scores seem just be the visual score multiplied by the nearby factor, not scaled back up so that the total scores sum up to 100.
- the higher-than-species score is much greater than 100. it looks like these scores are 100x what i would expect.
so if you’re using the low-red-to-high-green scale in that extension, i would expect that when viewing things using expected nearby only, you would see:
- a lot of red where some of the high-confidence species-level scores would have been green in the past (since the combined scores don’t seem to be getting readjusted to total back up to 100).
- seemingly random hues for higher-than-species guesses (since they are going beyond the 0 to 100 range expected in the past).
i see some changes to the computer vision from around the end of March (3 weeks ago), which i didn’t dig into very deeply, but which i assume would the source of the differences. i’m not sure what they were attempting to fix here exactly. so i can’t tell if these differences were intentional or not.