Well the problem of not addressing the issue is: “Multiple species observations”, (as well as “lomography masterpieces” - blurry shots of … something), will clog the system in the long term. These two types of observations, will accumulate in the higher taxonomic ranks. It will therefore become more and more difficult to search trough all “need ID” observations of, lets say Diptera of Wisconsin (let alone insects of the US), in order to catch old good, but never fully identified observations. This means we need a way to get these two types of observations out of the way into “casual”.
On the other hand i was planing to improve my observations, by including at least one shot of the habitat or of the host plant etc… And i think it would be great if more people could do this. … i do however not want these improved observations to go “casual” for being “multiple species observations”. And obviously habitat or host plant pictures are not necessarily useful within the taxon’s photo gallery either.
I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to go the other way: make people choose a “primary evidence” for their observation (either photo or sound recording). The “primary evidence” photo of an observation goes into the taxon’s photo gallery only, and the organism on the “primary evidence” (whether photo or sound recording) is to be identified … additional photos or sound recordings can be of help (e.g. details, habitats), but might be ignored if they seem unrelated (e.g. multiple species).
Following a transition period, “primary evidence” could be automatically set to the first photo of old observations, where users did not choose one manually. This would make “multiple species observations” orphaned by their users useful. And would enable a cleanup of higher ranks without restricting the users rights.