for example, this tree was identified as ficus sycomorus (link removed by moderator). when i saw the big pic i could quickly discern that it wasn’t ficus sycomorus. this is because ficus are one of my main areas of study, specifically dioecious species. so i’m not a tree generalist. the only reason that i was able to supply what i’m assuming is a correct id is because in the pic there’s a label on the tree. if there hadn’t been a label on the tree then i highly doubt that i would have guessed that it was a magnolia.
here’s another tree identified as ficus sycomorus (link removed by moderator). again, as soon as i saw the big pic of the tree i knew that it was incorrectly identified. but in this case there’s no label on the tree. my best guess, which is way outside my area of expertise, is a crape myrtle of some sort. but i wouldn’t even be willing to bet a penny on this guess. so i’d just like to click a “disagree” button and move on.
it’s hard for me to guess why there isn’t already a disagree button. because, a .01% confidence id guess is better than nothing?
maybe another example would help. here’s a tree wrongly id’d as a ficus (link removed by moderator) 6 years ago without any community feedback since then. i’m 100% confident that this tree is not a ficus and 20% confident it’s a pyrus of some sort, maybe evergreen pear tree? the 1st time this observation showed up in my results, and i clicked on it, i didn’t do anything, other than mentally note that it definitely wasn’t a ficus. so even with a 20% confident guess as to the tree’s true id i didn’t submit it. by the way, a 20% confident guess for me in this case is like being willing to bet 10 cents.
if there had been a disagree button on the ficus id then for sure i would have clicked it. because again, i’m 100% confident that it’s not a ficus tree. this feedback would have been better than nothing.
would a disagree button result in even more observations being overlooked? not if it’s done right. lots of people are naturally inclined to try to settle disagreements (aka ombudsman). these people would bookmark the search results for disagreements sorted by most recent and filtered for their area of interest. the tree ombudsmen would see my disagreements and they’d supply the correct id’s. and we could rank ombudsmen by how many disputes they’ve resolved.
You can disagree by selecting a higher taxon. I sometimes do and I am convinced that this is better than just saying no. Not only is this a chance to steer the ID into another direction, it also forces a cooperative behavior that is one of the greatest advantages of iNat over other platforms.
Yes. Add an ID at a higher level. Dicot, if nothing else feels comfortable. However, if you think it’s a Crepe Myrtle, you could look up it’s genus or family name and ID to that (Lagerstroemia or Lythraceae, respectively).
You can find the higher level names by going to the taxon page and typing in Crepe Myrtle (for example), then clicking on Taxonomy.
Dicots. (Looked only into one)
And there is nothing wrong to disagree to such high level. Even if someone disagrees to „life“ there is nothing wrong. I sometimes make such observations where I don’t have any specific idea: eggs? Fruits? Fungi? I might than start with fungus until some disagrees let say to life and maybe with a comment like this not a fungus. I appreciate this type of help and sometimes I continue with a another guess.
And you can of course use the data quality section to indicate if you see no life at all.
i feel like we have very different goals, which is perfectly fine. personally i’d really rather research ficus than help id random trees. clicking agree only takes 1 second, so i might as well do it when appropriate. there should be a 1 click alternative when i don’t agree. if the only alternative involves 2 or more clicks, then i might decide it’s not worth throwing my research under the bus for. obviously in the case of the magnolia tree wrongly id’d as a ficus tree, i didn’t mind typing out and submitting the correct id, since there was a label on the tree. but in cases where the correct id isn’t obvious, i just want the option to provide a 1 click feedback that i disagree with the suggested id.
The aim of iNaturalist is to collect IDs to work out what the most probable answer is (probably the wrong way to express it, but ah well). Simply providing a disagree button gives no indication of what the community ID should be - is the genus right but the species wrong? Is the family right? Or is it not even a plant?
If you’re interested in having correct IDs on Ficus, I suggest you think of providing higher-level IDs for non-ficus as part of your ficus research rather than helping ID random trees. Yes, it’s an extra click, but simply calling it a dicot (or even just plant) doesn’t really take that much effort or brain power. If you don’t mind wrong data, well, a disagree button wouldn’t help anyway.
Let me me put it this way: in my view a disagree button over all would destroy more value than creating. That is why I vote against it.
On the other hand it’s nothing wrong if you would ignore each ficus observation that you not have confirmed.
As more of an observer than an identifier, IDs that take a plant from a species back to just a kingdom aren’t usually very helpful from a learning standpoint. Having some just ‘disagree’ without any support at all would probably ruffle some leaves. Magnoliopsida vs Liliopsida would be fine as it indicates the IDer has some knowledge of what they are looking at.
In your two and a half years on iNaturalist, you have made slightly better than 200 Identifications, all but 5 within the last 3 weeks. This is not a criticism, just to note your use is relatively recent.
In your 3 weeks on the forum, you have proposed the following changes to iNaturalist:
You seem very interested in making large-scale changes to a platform you have only very recently begun to engage with, so my suggestion would be to slow down and take time to familiarize more fully first before beginning to propose sweeping changes.
That said, again I note that you or anyone else would be quite welcome to do as you suggested in one of your own threads and start the new, multi-market platform you proposed.
As others have already indicated, the only way to disagree on iNaturalist is to offer another alternative, even if Family or Kingdom level is the best alternative one can offer. We ask people to identify only to the level at which they are confident, and the algorithm sorts out the Community ID from there.
If you are not wanting to give an observation that level of attention, then the alternative is to mark it as “Reviewed” and move on. That simply removes it from your default feed, so you won’t see it again unless you specifically filter for observations you have already reviewed. The rest of the community can still add disagreeing IDs to help steer the ID in a better direction.
It seems everyone else has already given all the points against such a feature.
But here is a summary:
You can already disagree by selecting a higher taxon or adding a different ID
a “disagree” button would destroy more value than it creates, as it doesn’t provide any direction for the community ID
Which, again as a few of your threads, should be created in the feature request category if you are proposing an actual change that you would like to see.
I do find it interesting that you consistently have ideas that are widely unpopular and go against iNat organizations goals. Is this intentional or are you expecting a platform to meet your every need?
As @ItsMeLucy already pointed out you are a relatively new user and have proposed several large changes to the platform, it might be helpful to take time to familiarize yourself with the platform before proposing changes.
By no means am I saying the platform is perfect, we all have our own problems with it, but it is meant to be a platform for everyone and meet the needs of the average user.
Hard disagreement with the first ID (the one you saw and evaluated)
is counted as silent disagreement with ANY future ID. Please follow your notifications so you can withdraw or reconsider the future ID.
wrong ID
hard disagreement to plants
right ID vs first 2
ditto
ditto
ditto
ditto will finally convince CID to RG. More than 2/3.
If there were a straight ‘disagree’ button, what should the community ID become after you have disagreed?
I often have to disagree with things outside my area of knowledge, but there is always a level that you will know to. I do hoverflies, but I don’t know most other groups of flies well at all. If I come across something misidentified as a hoverfly, I don’t spend time trying to identify it, I just whack an ID of ‘Flies’, or ‘Brachycera’, or if it’s not even a fly I’ll give an ID of ‘order hymenoptera’, or even just ‘winged insects’ - whatever I can do off the top of my head. The people who know about that taxon can then take it further.
wrong ID
Potential simple disagreement - with NO ID - would not count
right ID vs first 1
ditto
ditto will finally convince CID to RG. More than 2/3.
Would have the HUGE advantage of needing only 3 identifiers to agree.
Instead of 5 - for many taxa it is a mission to track down 5 competent, and willing and active, identifiers. Ask me how I know as I work thru Pre-Mavericks and Kingdom Disagreements (Africa for me, choose your location) and obs trapped at the higher broader taxa IsAPlant!
.
It seems like the thing to do is to kick the observation back to dicot and then add a comment explaining why it is definitely not a Ficus. It would take about a minute to do so, less if you skip the explanatory comment.