Find observations "the system" voted as not wild

[bouteloua]

In the Data Quality Assessment section:

The system will vote that the observation is not wild/naturalized if there are at least 10 other observations of a genus or lower in the smallest county-, state-, or country-equivalent place that contains this observation and 80% or more of those observations have been marked as not wild/naturalized.

This caveat in the DQA means that species commonly cultivated but rarely found growing in their native haunts or out naturalizing are hidden from most default views on the website. These are important observations – rare species or potential new invasive species.

I’m not really interested right now in discussing whether this automated system of marking should be changed (you can start a separate linked topic if you’d like), but rather asking that these autovotes be findable so that they can be checked for false positives.

[bouteloua]

(this topic also isn’t a place to discuss what wild/captive/cultivated/planted currently means or should mean)

[mftasp]

I agree, I would worry a lot more if the system automatically marks these, rather than a person having to make a judgement call, and being able to search for them would be a great help.

[NancyinSunnyvale]

Good point bouteloua!

Please, Loarie and crew, can the system at least notify the observer when an observation receives a DQA “vote” that makes it less visible to others.

(To help new users, the notice should link to a webpage on how (mostly to where) to add a correcting DQA vote.)

[NancyinSunnyvale]

I see that such notices are “on the radar.” When implemented, DQA notifications to observers will do a lot to fix this problem.

[tiwane]

Just an update, we’re looking into a way to do this.