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.