Step 1: There is an observation with more than one species on the photos. I tick the box “evidence related to a single subject”. The observation goes to casual as it should
Step 2: The observer deletes the additional photos and leaves one photo, problem with multiple subjects is now fixed. I would assume that the box should automatically un-tick because in observations with one photos this option is inactive (you cannot mark an obs with only one photo as not related to a single subject)
Step 3: But no, I have to manually un-tick the option. This generates a problem that if I don’t return to the observation it will be marked as casual unless someone manually fixes it
I created an example observation, unless someone un-ticks the option, you can see an example of an observation with a single photo but still marked as evidence not related to a single subject.
I’d personally prefer it stays marked and we have to manually unmark it. As there have been several times I have flagged an observation for copyright infringement, they delete the photo, and upload a new stolen photo. So I have started also marking that DQA. If they were flagged for copyright infringement, they didn’t just magically get evidence of said organism later.
Agreed - the first example is broken. The option for ‘multiple photos each with a different subject’ is intended to disable if there is only ONE photo.
I don’t understand why you would use ‘multiple subjects’ for stolen photos ?? You could not use it if there is only one photo anyway.
Sometimes there is a problem of multiple subjects on one photo. A number of species in one frame (like, pollinators bees on the same flower, or a flock of birds), or a photo of small collection of feathers belonging to different birds. Maybe it’s a matter of a separate discussion if it would be useful to have this option also in observations with single photos. But for now, the behaviour of the option is just inconsistent.
In the case like described by @malisaspring I think that “the observation doesn’t present evidence of an organism” would be box more accurately reflecting the identifier’s doubts to the reliability of the observation
We have had that ‘multiple subjects in a single photo’ discussion many times. That was not what this DQA is for. Any nature photo - which is not a posed studio portrait - contains multiple subjects.
This isn’t a bug, it’s working as designed. That being said it might be worth adding this functionality for this specific DQA metric.
I’d say this is a pretty different case. For this metric, it’s only applicable if there are multiple photos. So if the observation only has one photo, by definition it shouldn’t have this problem, unless I’m missing something.
How is this a problem?
This should really only be used for things like photos of rocks or something. I’m not sure I understand the use case here?
What is the purpose of the box staying selected, and the observation remaining casual, after the additional photos are removed and there is only one photo in the observation? edit: or you mean that technically it is not a bug and the issue should be reporter as a feature request or something like this?
I described it in my post. But it was only a digression because of @malisaspring post, I see now that it would have been better if I didn’t mention it here at all because it adds confusion to the thread.
i think removing all dqa when photos, location, or date are added, removed, or changed is a simple, obvious solution, but another option could be to give everyone who voted on dqa a notification when those edits happen. neither are currently implemented, but it’s not a bug, just an oversight/something the team hasn’t gotten to yet
