Much the same thing is seen with IDs - if you have two IDs on an observation and delete one, that seems to untick ‘reviewed’ (and probably ‘following’ but I haven’t checked) - at least if you’re doing it from the Identify page. But it shouldn’t…
Or typing a new ID without realising that your initial ‘i’ to add an ID didn’t work, so when you reach an ‘a’, you’re agreeing instead of disagreeing. In such cases I’ll sometimes add a new ID, then go back and delete the one I never meant to leave - and doing things in that order means it’s no longer marked ‘reviewed’, even though I still have a valid ID.
Yes, following and reviewed are both unchecked for deleting IDs. It has done this for a long time. It adds steps to forcing “…disagrees that this is…” to be precise in saying what it actually counts as. Even with your ID before or after, deleting a comment also unfollows.
This seem not great. What would be the most useful behavior? Upon ID or comment deletion, continue to follow an observation if you still have either a remaining comment or an active ID?
Yes, I should have said “same or closely related”. The issues seem to be occurring together, as
I’m not sure exactly how following and reviewed are set by the system, but it seems circumstantially likely that the same mechanism is affecting both reviewed and followed in this case - the reports seem to describe the same non-optimal/unintuitive behavior, just for followed vs. reviewed. I would argue (as in the report I linked), that an observation should remain both followed and reviewed if there is an active ID or comment on it. In fact, one could argue that an observation should remain reviewed even if all IDs and comments are deleted (but I’m not looking to address that) If staff are fixing the behavior of followed with comment/ID deletion, they can probably also address what may be the same (or at least closely related) past report for reviewed as well.
I have not closed or proposed to close this report unless the issue is fixed? Only this report has received attention from staff to look into it (not the five year old one I linked to above). Mentioning the five year old one here is a way to potentially address that languishing report at the same time as this active one. It is unclear to me why you object to my linking the other report and attempting to promote the resolution of both?
It has not been fixed, I haven’t made an issue for our engineers yet. So far I’ve just been gathering feedback about what people would want to happen in these situations.
