Edit 10/21/25: A few users have pointed out how hiding all withdrawn IDs would inadvertently hide withdrawn IDs with comments or IDs that contribute to the flow of identification. I agree and would like to see only automatic changes in identifications (taxon changes) be hidden by default if this change were to be implemented.
Description of need:
Withdrawn identifications take up a lot of space and appear messy on observation pages especially when there are many taxon changes or withdrawn identifications. This can make navigating observations difficult at times. As taxonomic revisions will certainly always be a part of iNaturalist, observations will continue to have layers upon layers of withdrawn identifications due to taxonomic changes in the future. I have included one example of a Joshua Tree observation with 15 total withdrawn IDs due to taxon changes or further revisions of the identification.
Feature request details:
I believe an easy solution to this would be to add a box at the top of the chain of identifications that allows you toggle/expand the withdrawn identifications. The withdrawn identifications would be by default hidden and clicking a plus (+) sign would expand and display those hidden IDs and show the observation as it currently appears. I have included a rough idea of what this might look like:
It’s totally time for this; I’ve wished for this feature for a while. Obviously, this is a bigger issue with some taxa than others, but left unaddressed, over time this situation is just going to compound.
Untidy - yes. I actively delete my IDs which have been automatically withdrawn by the system. To me they serve no purpose. If one day taxonomy reactivates that previous ID … I will delete the next withdrawn ID. A single entry from iNat - taxon A was withdrawn and replaced by taxon B - is all the info that is needed. Then display only the IDs which an identifier has actively made.
Your Joshua tree example - has 5 active IDs. That taxonomy history needs to be on the taxon page - but not on every Joshua tree obs. No? Is it useful info on an obs ?
I’m definitely in favor of this but it should also be considered that in a few cases withdrawn id’s have useful comments that will also be hidden (probably not really an issue - just something to think about).
I could see this for taxonomic changes, but I wouldn’t want IDs withdrawn “manually” by users to be collapsed or less visible. These are often important to understanding the flow of identifications decisions. I am sure that they are a small proportion of withdrawn IDs on iNat (probably <5%?).
sometimes there are notes associated with the identifications. if an identification with notes gets withdrawn as a result of a taxon change, then automatically hiding those identifications would hide the original notes, too.
unhidden comments and identifications in between hidden ones could look odd out of context, too.
I think some/most of the concerns above could be remedied by allowing users to adjust their settings to “default” the hidden/unhidden toggle one way or another.
I see a lot more identification histories that are somewhat hard to follow (like the example given) because of repeated taxon changes, or even people clicking the “Agree” button in rapid succession and winding up with a bunch of withdrawn IDs, then I do useful comments on withdrawn IDs.
So personally, I’d default to hide the withdrawn IDs (remembering, it would be easy to toggle on/off within individual observations) - but I could definitely see others wanting it the other way around.
More broadly speaking, I know it complicates the code, but I think we’d be well served by allowing more customization of how (and what) information is presented - we see a fair number of feature requests where community opinion is split, where perhaps an ideal result would be enhanced customization options.
You and @felix-nicholls make great points, I didn’t consider comments or the flow of identification decisions (which is super useful to see) being hidden. Maybe then this feature would just be best for taxon changes? I have made an edit at the top of the post to reflect these sentiments
Hmm, I dont know.. I still frequently run into cases when a taxon split for example left a mess (looking at you, Lycosoidea and Pisauridae) … there are still 1000s of observations e.g. lingering around at Lycosoidea, despite them having been IDed years ago by active IDers to e.g. the finer taxon Ctenidae, but then some weird split happened and those IDs where reset to Lycosoidea.. I find it rather helpful to see, that those active IDers did not per se be that careful for some reasonI am not aware of (which might make me second guess my own suggestion and play it safe) but had already IDed it to the taxon I had in mind to.. so I can go on with my own suggestion instead of just closing this observation again, untouched.
