Disagreeing with an ID without explicitly agreeing to a different ID

[sbushes]

@tallastro

Maybe dropping the order of IDs from influencing the community ID. The name you place in an ID is just that, the best name you can provide. No more boxes popping up asking you how your ID relates to a previous more specific ID.

Opiliones, Harvestman Species A, Spider, Opiliones: would be listed as Harvestman Species A - Need ID.

I certainly agree the design and use of the disagreement prompts are problematic. Especially in Needs ID observations we have trapped at higher levels.

But in the sequence you mention… whether the final Opiliones ID was an ancestor disagreement or not, the community ID would still not go to species.
It doesn’t even matter how many supporting votes it gets higher up. The spider ID blocks it…

Even with 9 Harvestmen IDs, it could still have the community ID of Opiliones:

|Cumulative|Disagreements|Ancestor Disagreements|Total|
| — | ----------- | ----------- |-|- |
| 9 x Opiliones | 1 x spider | -|0.9|
| 1 x Phalangioidea | 1 x spider | -|0.5|
| 1 x Leiobuninae | 1 x spider | -|0.5|
| 1 x Leiobunum | 1 x spider | -|0.5|
| 1 x Leiobunum species A | 1 x spider | - |0.5|

@matthew_connors

of course that would involved some rather deep changes within iNat itself

I guess it depends on what you mean by the word deep… but I’m not convinced it would be that complex. As discussed on the other thread, disregarding maverick IDs as disagreements would be one way to fix the problem.