Illogical progression of community ID

#1

see https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/21827521

An ID was made to Aptera fusca - which is a wrong ID.
I posted a correction to Order Blattodea, with a disagreement to Aptera fusca, which changed the community ID to Blattoidea - fine.
Finer resolutions of Family Blaberidae were posted, which became the community ID - fine.
But if I now change my ID to family, then the disagreement with Aptera fusca is withdrawn (logical - fine), but the “Needs ID” now becomes Aptera fusca, because it is a member of Blaberidae (wrong! - but the community ID is still Blaberidae as the species level requires one more ID, but I suspect that if there had been an additional species level ID, it would become Aptera fusca).
However, because the community ID was Blaberidae, I dont have the option of disagreeing with Aptera fusca in my finer ID.
To achieve this I have to post my ID of Family Blaberidae a second time (not intuitive or logical) but I do now have the option of disagreeing to Aptera fusca, even though the community ID is still Blaberidae (not logical).

Is this really how this was intended to work?
Can a more intuitive workflow not capture this progression (e.g. because I previously disagreed in the same clade, that I am always asked if I disagree with finer identifications until such time as I opt not to disagree?). I appreciate that the code will be more intricate but the average user will not be so flummoxed, and the need for duplicate identifications will be solved (and any unwanted implications for a reputation system when implemented: disagreeing with a previous identical ID is bound to affect one’s “accuracy” and “consistency”).

0 Likes

#2

It may seem a bit illogical, but the reason is that your original ID (disagreeing, at Blattodea) is live until your other ID goes live. It was also the only ID that holds explicit disagreement (in fact, other identifiers couldn’t explicitly disagree because, at that time, they were refining both observation and community IDs). But getting the result you’re wanting also can be done without placing two IDs. The best solution I’ve found for this is to withdraw your original ID first. This really just forces the system to do things in human logic versus computer logic. Then when you add your new ID, it will show the updated community and observation IDs that you can now disagree with while refining your original disagreeing ID.

0 Likes

#3

That make sense, but will make even more havoc on a reputation system, where one withdraws an ID “for no reason”, when in fact one is refining an ID. I am assuming iNat has the finess to track “leading” and “improving” and thus will be able to work out when a user is refining and ID versus posting an unrelated one (or withdrawing one without improving it).

0 Likes

#4

I see this more and more often. You can easily override that ID system by deleting your first ID on that observation and then adding the more specific ID. Seems cheap, but it works.

0 Likes

#5

Your first ID was an explicit disagreement with Blaberidae (and Blaberoidea) anyways, so as far as potential reputation systems go, not sure it would matter if you manually withdrew or “auto-withdrew” when adding a new ID. I agree that folks adding IDs of Blaberidae after your initial disagreement shouldn’t be assumed to agree—or not—with Aptera fusca.

1 Like