At present, in situations like this one, the community taxon algorithm balances an initial incorrect ID against the finest expert level ID and disregards coarser input from the community which supports the expert ID.
See the breakdown here:
So at genus level we have 1/(1+1+0=2) = 0.5
Thats …1 x expert ID / 1 x expert ID + 1 x expert ID + 1 x incorrect original ID
This completely disregards the weight of the other 3 x identifiers supporting the fact it is a sawfly, not even a true fly. If the initial incorrect ID still forms part of the equation at genus level sawfly, shouldn’t the 3 x coarse sawfly IDs supporting it be taken into account here somehow as well?
Why aren’t coarse IDs taken into account in this equation?
If they were, what might that algorithm look like?
What would be the downsides of implementing change connected to this?
At present to have the community taxon go to genus would require two other sawfly identifiers - that would be 6 x IDs in total to overcome the initial incorrect ID at order and place it correctly to genus. In comparison with an observation which was initially placed at Hymenoptera, where 1 x ID would suffice to place in correct genus. To my mind, the 3 coarse IDs should essentially overrule the initial ID at level of order. At the very least, they should enter into the final equation.
For me personally, this aspect of the existing algorithm is a source of frustration because, as someone who is active at coarser levels, a good portion of my identification time is spent overcoming this imbalance - either adding weight to others or tagging people in to try and help resolve an observation which has been trapped at the level of order/suborder (often for years). This might seem like a minor annoyance, but it adds up - I’d guess 30-50% of my IDs at order/suborder relate to this issue. For me, that’s equivalent to time spent on about 15000-25000 IDs… time which to my mind, could be far better utilised on other IDs.