The summary implies that there are three IDs and two disagreements. But this is a research grade observation.
Clicking the About yields
Which is correct: there is a wrong ID, following by a generic ID, followed by 3 species-level IDs.
So in summary there are three green (correct IDs), one neutral ID (to genus) and one disagreement.
However, the neutral ID is displayed in Red, suggesting a disagreement. Could neutral IDs (or more specifically, IDs of a higher rank that do not disagree with the current level ID), perhaps not display in grey?
That would allow me to inspect the score bar and work out that it is 3 for to 1 against (i.e. 75% agreement), with a neutral ID, rather than the current display that suggests a 60% agreement versus 40% disagreement, and therefore NOT “research grade” when the ID is clearly marked research grade. .
I agree - it does seem confusing (note the many discussions about disagreeing ID’s).
I think RG is reached because there is one vote against 3 and the original has become “Maverick”. The second ID disagreed with the first but not the ones that followed. This structure is different to the community ID where they are all lined up in one line, its like 2D mathematical logic against 1D. If you wanted to draw the community ID the same way, rather than having the second ID as red on the same line it should be a green (or grey) bar above the other 3 more refined ID’s leaving only the red single segment and thus achieving 2/3 majority. A problem with having two models representing basically the same thing (an agreed upon species).
I don’t know what an ideal solution is as if the original ID had been in the dame genus and the second ID’er knew it was the wrong species but the right genus and made a disagreement at genus level then that currently disagrees with all future ID’s below that on the tree, so it wouldn’t be RG (possibly).
I immediately thought of making neutral/higher level IDs yellow (in keeping with the red/green signal theme), but agree totally.
I’ve been IDing a lot of unknowns lately, often at the Kingdom level. It is surprisingly satisfying, as tagging something as a bird or fungus often leads to more knowledgeable users refining the ID to Research Grade. But my IDs are hardly a disagreement with more refined identification later and I would hate for them to somehow count against (or even appear to count against) better IDs later. They are a step towards a precise ID–often for an observation by a new user with fewer than 10 observations–intended to guide the process, not disagree with other IDs.
