I fully agree !
Thanks the best Radek @radekwalkowiak !
Rubbish! Would it be an improvement? Maybe… Even if it was… would it be essential? As in… iNat can’t function without it? Get real…!
You are maybe talking from a scientists perspective, where the level of complexity you are talking about is very useful, but iNat is NOT a scientific site… it is targeted at a much broader community than just the scientists. Scientists can feel free to extract as much valuable data/information from that as they are able, but iNat is not there exclusively FOR the scientists. It would be like me kicking the tyres of a Kia Cerato and commenting that an essential change would be to put a rocket engine in it… surely it would go much faster than that piddly little engine! But would it still be drive-able by the general public, for which it is designed and manufactured?
So let me know your fears of this change. Do you think that less experienced users could feel overwhelmed by that? I may not see any real problem, except needless, inhibiting fears which shall be solved. What was iNat without science and all the work of scientists, could it be at all?
So, it’s not useful to separate scientists from less experienced, or let’s say less specialized naturalists, nor to think that iNat was “not scientific”.
The change i am supporting, is in fact an improvement for all the iNat community, and from my point of view there is no sound reason to fear from usage of subspecies.
No one is urged to know infraspecific taxa or distinctive characters of.
Research grade may be kept at species level, as i think this is useful, and displayed ID could turn to subspecies when this is supported by at least 2 IDs.
This is how the current system works
I’ve just had a run-in with this bug myself.
Why are we still displaying higher-order IDs rather than the leading ID of an infraspecies, or at least the parent species, if there is a problem with the way RG is coded? If I apply an ID for an infraspecies, I am also implicitly applying an ID of the species. In the case of the autonym, I am adding an ID for the species explicitly.
If the problem is with the way we handle RG, then we should be turning off RG until we find a way to solve this, not preventing identifications of infraspecies. I find the current concept of Research Grade a bit of a joke currently anyway. It is constantly gamed by a relatively high proportion of users blindly and instantly agreeing with external IDs.
Yes, but the displayed Species doesn’t change if a subspecies/var./etc. is suggested to an observation at genus or above. The platform just acts as though you didn’t add an ID at all. Shouldn’t it at least move it down to the species level until someone agrees with the subspecies?
See the very second reply in this topic (quoted below). I think people, including iNat staff, generally agree that that would be ideal, it’s just an issue of implementing it. The ID system is pretty central to the way iNat works, and I suppose fiddling with it has the potential to mess things up pretty seriously.
Thanks, seems I misread what he was saying there.
I see this complication stemming from the RG status only being able to be given at a level of species or below. Various coded rules have been added to handle this that don’t apply to other levels. Thus iNat behaves differently in these circumstances and appears like an error when it is noticed by users because no explanation is given on the observations’ pages.
Stripping out the RG level limit rule to remove this complexity would either fix this or extend the problem to all other observations and potentially make the site unusable.
An alternative is to add features and display information to deal with it. To avoid all observations becoming more complicated for every user perhaps this could be limited to the observations or taxa that need it.
Getting rid of RG altogether would solve this bug.
Regardless of whether it is acting so by design (since the alternative is worse), to me this is a functionality shortfall caused by the need to add extra gamification to the iNat experience.
Research grade can be granted at higher taxonomic levels than species.
Regardless of what you call it, how you calculate it, label it (or even if you put a label on it at all), you still need some criteria that determines that some level of consensus on the identity of a record has been reached and that it no longer shows in the default ‘needs to be identified’ sections of the site.
That function is probably the most important thing the Research Grade classification does (I’m assuming GBIF could get whatever dataset they wanted based on the fact they use a custom query to determine records to receive, so that query can simply be written to reflect what they wish to get)
Can you not do that while still presenting users with the ID at the rank it has reached, or even as species when there are leading infraspecies IDs? I was under the impression from the argument so far that it’s the hacks needed to present RG that cause observations to be presented to users ignoring infraspecific IDs.
This also leads to a data loss situation, and a mess come time to do splits: two subspecies are different taxa, and often get split eventually into different species. If I you encourage users to not use subspecies IDs because they don’t do what one expects them to do, then everything will have to be individually identified in the event that one of the infraspecies is upgraded to species.
I’m curious if you think this is a real deterrent for identifiers seeking to use subspecies IDs. In taxa that I ID, some people use subspecies and some people don’t, and from what I can tell, it has nothing to do with how the system handles it, and is mostly related to convictions about whether location alone should be used to ID to subspecies.
This is not true for most splits. The only time this is true is when no portion of the range can be unambiguously assigned (via atlases) to the output species.
Hard to say, but I think it would be when adding a subspecies or variety ID results in no change to the ID from genus. I think this is bad UX. Frustration can lead to ceasing a behaviour.
BTW I find it hard to think of infraspecies, especially varieties as geographic concepts. If they can’t be distinguished morphologically, they probably should not be used. Botanically there are many instances of co-occurring infraspecies that can’t be separated with an atlas.
For me it is. It even outweighs my annoyance that refining IDs are not considered agreeing for notification purposes–that is if I choose not to put the subspecies but the next person does, I’ll be notified.
How to see all observations with an infraspecies?
For example I have this observation that I have ID’d down to ‘var. hypoglauca’
Adiantum hispidulum (Rough Maidenhair Fern) from Talegalla Weir QLD 4650, Australia on April 11, 2020 at 04:41 PM by Scott W Gavins · iNaturalist Australia (ala.org.au)
but the species page says there are no observations of ‘var. hypoglauca’. I assume if it is not showing my observation that there may be more that are not shown. How do I find them?
To find all observations with an ID of that particular variety, try the URL parameter
Or the IDs themselves:
As far as seeing all observations with an infraspecies ID, I think the only way is by using the API. @pisum has created a way to more easily view a list of IDs that meet a certain criteria here: https://jumear.github.io/stirfry/iNatAPIv1_identifications.html?hrank=subspecies (all IDs at rank subspecies, variety, form, or infrahybrid)
Thanks for the info.
I meant to clarify that I was referring to a particular infraspecies so the info you provided at the top of your comment covered that.
So I assume then that there is no iNat GUI to generate a url with something like ‘ident_taxon_id=1002729’ in it?
Unfortunately no. One of many search queries not listed in the user interface: https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/search+urls#active-id