Sorry if I am too long, but I try also to synthesize the discussion.
No suggested solution seems complete and easy for all users (from the beginner to the curator).
The multiple-species observations issue happens so often that I wouldn’t suggest to charge the curators with it. I guess curators have more added value with many other issues. We need a solution so that everyone can contribute to solving the issue.
My own concern with this issue is that I would like not to see anymore unrelated pictures in a taxon page. More generally, multiple-species observations degrade the quality of iNaturalist contents. As already pointed out, it also impacts the AI (Artificial Intelligence) that gets fed with irrelevant data. I guess the projects are also impacted.
Another concern is the loss of potential value of these observations. I consider this as less important than the degradation effects.
A significant part of the discussion is about DQA (Data Quality Assesment).
I think we need a new category in the DQA panel because:
- This is what the DQA in general if for.
- The current categories in the DQA panel do not match the multiple-species observations issue.
- A new category would allow all of us to mark these observations. Later, when we will have “the” solution, we could apply it to the marked observations. (No currently existing DQA category can serve this purpose, a dedicated category is needed).
- The marked observations would not appear anymore in any taxon page and would not be taken into account by AI.
In short, I suggest a new dedicated DQA category now, some simple treatments to be applied now for limiting the impacts, and other solutions to define/apply later on the already flagged solutions.
I think it is important to have a friendly solution. I don’t really like applying a high level ID just to break the current ID, because I wish to remove a content from the taxon page. And IDs are not for that.
I think that any DQA vote should be notified to the observation owner. The difference between a DQA vote and a textual comment is that DQA votes can be exploited automatically (each DQA item has a definite meaning), while comments cannot (the semantic is open). But for the observation owner, it’s the same: a remark about his/her observation. If a dedicted DQA category is created for multiple-species observations, of course votes need to be notified to the owner (so that he/she is aware of the need to split the observation), but there is the same need for all DQA votes.
As an IT engineer, I also pay attention to propose solutions that are less expensive to develop. Adding a new DQA category is cheap if it reuses a common existing mechanism, it doesn’t even need new UI stuff, it doesn’t need much testing effort.
Congratulations to all contributors, this platform is really great!
And your online support to beginners is much appreciated.