I was not very involved in the Africa Mission Impossible effort, so I may be missing context. I think the question is how should we treat observations where a user posts multiple photos and the intended subject of the photos appears to be different species.
My process:
-
If I encounter a new multiple species observation, I usually add a comment without ID: “Looks like you’ve observed a few different species in the photos here. Each species should be on its own separate observation. There are some tips for splitting the observation up here: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/how-to-fix-your-observation-with-photos-of-multiple-species/15096. Please make a comment if you split the photos, so I can update my ID.”
-
If I encounter a multiple species observation that already has a comment, but no ID I will ID as “Life” and make sure that comment includes the link for help and request to comment if they fix the problem. I think this is the step of concern, so I will elaborate below.
-
If I encounter a multiple species observation that has a high level ID already (Life or Otherwise), I add an ID that is the most specific common ID I can add. I make sure that the comments include education, the recommendation to make a comment and that I believe this is the best ID that can be provided until the species are split. At this point, I check the DQA for “as good as it can be”. I don’t see the need to bump a multi-species observation to “Life” once it already has another appropriate high-level ID. “Agree” and DQA is less work.
-
I monitor Casuals for 3 US states. If I catch a multiple species observation being DQAed without notice/education to the observer, I add a comment similar to the one above.
Why:
I really focus on the education/communication to the observer because I think most of these are mistakes. I want observers to have the information that will enable them to have a better experience on iNat. I know that not all IDers have the patience for doing this.
I add “Life” an an interim ID so that it will get into the pathway of high volume IDers who are willing to help with these situations. I know that most of these IDers will make a second ID that is more specific when appropriate. If not, I can do that when I get the notification of 2nd ID. I also have a project that is monitoring Needs IDs unknowns for my primary focus area. So if something is at “Life” in this area, I can come back to it in the off season and tend to it.
I hope that making the Identification experience better will lead to more engagement and improved IDs over time. People IDing high level IDs (not Life) are likely are looking to improve Plants, Fungi, Athropods, etc. We really need this. These people may also be less familiar with community conventions for what to do with multi-species observations.
What next?
If we aren’t going to do ID to Life anymore, we need a work around. Perhaps we could add them to the Variable Species and Other Life project. I suspect that will be more work and I don’t think my above approach is devaluing anyone’s observations or IDing efforts. But I’m happy to adjust to evolving community norms.
Edited: I removed an idiomatic expression that I thought might not work well on this multi-cultural forum or in the context of recent events.