ID stuck as Needs ID even when identity is known for sure

My observation of Eastern Yellow Wagtail is stuck as Needs ID even though the identity is known. This bird was accepted by the BBRC (British Birds Rarities Committee). It was well photographed and the call recorded. I also heard it call, which is very diagnostic.

I assume this is because of dissenting voices. How does this get resolved or is it stuck in limbo forever.

I have other certain ID’s but because someone has proffered a “rogue” ID, inasmuch as disagreeing with all others, it gets stuck as Needs ID again. Is this just something you have to live with?

Additionally is there any suggestion for getting unidentified submissions re-looked at please. Is it a delete and resubmit to bring them back to the fore.

Thank you.


In this case, the reason the observation is still “Needs ID” is that no other identifiers have agreed and added a second ID to the observation to confirm it. All Research Grade observations must have a consensus of 2 or more IDs from the community.


This is a difficult species to identify, and as a vagrant is unusual for the location, so I suspect many have not added their IDs for lack of experience. There are no dissenting IDs on the observations, only comments seeking more information, which is appropriate in a case like this.

Things you can do to improve the chances of someone agreeing with your ID:

  1. Include more detailed information in the “Notes” field, including a description of the call and any other evidence that this is the species you’ve identified it as. You mention in the comments that it was accepted by the BBRC, but none of the additional information available to the BBRC is given here.

  2. You mention that there is a diagnostic recording - yours, or someone else’s? If yours, you can upload the recording to the same observation.

  3. Tag a few of the top identifiers of the species. It’s good to leave it for some time first, but as you submitted it 6 months ago, I think enough time has passed.

  4. For a rare vagrant, I’d suggest not to use the computer vision suggestions. This gives the impression that you might have unknowlingly picked one of the suggestions without knowing much about the species (it happens a lot!) There is a little symbol that shows you selected one of the options from the computer vision suggestions. Better instead to type in the name.

  5. In comments, provide links to useful material others might use to confirm the ID. Most European field guides don’t include this species (at least as a species). Taxonomy in this group of species is complex, and constantly changing, which doesn’t help.


If you have a call audio or a link to somewhere with recording, it would help others to agree with your id. For now nobody added any ids other than you. Please don’t reupload anything without much need, now it’s just nobody who saw the photo can agree with photo alone. It doesn’t mean nobody else will agree with you later.


I just looked at the observation and as of 8 hours ago it is at Research grade. I would echo what @deboas said about tagging top identifiers. When I opened the link, the list of identifiers was not open. In the moth world we are not hesitant about asking for help right away as they are so difficult to identify!

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.