I was not so enthusiastic when I heard about this new DQA item
Firstly, and this could be easily addressed, the term “Evidence related to a single subject” can be misunderstood, especially for non-native speakers. Irrespective of a future explanation in the guidance, its purpose should be directly clear from the few words in the DQA section - and I fear some people might read it as there could also be ambiguosity within a single photo (i.e. multiple species visible). So I would advocate to change the wording to something like 'all photos/audios relate to same subject'
On a similar note, when I saw this string to be translated in Crowdin, it was presented without any context, so I had no idea what would be a proper way to translate it. That was, until I saw the latest blog post. I hope that there aren’t any translations in other languages now which where done before the context was clear and might now be confusing or even misleading (even more than the original string, I mean)
Secondly, I have an issue with the guidance by @loarie in the blog post comment to
please prioritize (1) voting no to the new DQA condition. After that it’s also helpful to (2) add IDs of the nearest shared taxonomic node and (3) to politely ask the observer to split the observation. But since 1 will move these observations to Casual, 2 & 3 are not as high priority if you don’t feel like doing these additional steps.
Observers do not get notified about DQA votes applied to their observations, and I uploaded some observations myself where by mistake unrelated photos were included. I certainly would want to be notified and I am sure most IDers using the new DQA vote will comment on the observation as well, but with above statement it might appear sufficient for some to just move the observation to ‘casual’ status without the observer even noticing - all in good compliance with the guidance. And I don’t feel this is a good way to interact with such cases