This is somewhat concerning since I use the Can’t be improved check to get blurry shots out of the way, but now it looks like potentially this could be sending faulty records to GBIF.
Is there a way that I can see observations that had “Observation can’t be improved” checked? Or for observations that the Community ID differs from the header ID?
This is very concerning. I know for a fact that we have hundreds, if not thousands of Bombus that we’ve hit that, and occasionally the user comes along later and puts their own unsupported ID, which is now apparently on GBIF.
I promised myself not to take on another batch.
But the first one I checked for Africa - the observer had clicked ‘good as can be’ and eliminated their obs from Needs ID.
I have just rescued 1/3 of the sennas marked as “The Community Taxon is as good as it can be”, some very easy to identify (these 2 Senna didymobotrya).
This project was created, for technical reasons, as a list of observations not to review. I didn’t think at start that it could be useful the other way around.
Beside this case, I would vote for any feature request asking for more filtering criteria.
Strangely, a good deal of these in my area stem from a curator’s way of dealing with duplicate obs (pushing back to ‘State of Matter Life’ + voting DQA ‘can’t be improved’). Confusing.
We still don’t have a solution for outright duplicates.
Life and DQA cannot be improved was also used for - many pictures each with a different subject.
We have a single subject DQA now - so those can be ‘improved’ to Casual within iNat’s guidelines.
They should not be doing this, curator or not. Staff have said that duplicates are not a big deal (iNat isn’t reliable for abundance data anyway) and should be treated like any other observation. If one isn’t willing to ID them, I think the best solution is to comment that it is a duplicate, mark reviewed and move on.