Turn the withdraw function into a visible button on the observation
(with a connected tooltip to explain its purpose).
As has been vocalised by many (especially on recent threads)… there is a well-known issue with OPs “blind agreeing” to IDs that are suggested. The major downside of this occurs when both OP and identifier have no, or limited, knowledge of taxa. Its impact is probably more pronounced in locations and taxa with limited identifiers.
POTENTIAL DAMAGE might include :-
- the accuracy of the iNaturalist dataset on GBIF
- the perception of the quality of the iNaturalist dataset by external entities
- corruption of the test data used by the CV model
- the amount of work identifiers have to do to fix incorrect RG obs
- as well as feedback loops resulting from this, which exaggerate all of the above
The exact reasons for this “blind agreement”, doubtless vary.
Some might have multiple reasons.
POSSIBLE REASONS may include:
A - as a form of thanks or acknowledgement
B - simply because there is only one button visible, and it offers the option to agree
C - ceding power, because the original ID is conflicting, and the withdraw button is not understood by newer users
D - to make an observation RG so it goes to GBIF
E - to take an observation out of the “Needs ID” pool and see it as somehow more resolved
F - to second and cement an ID if the identifier is a known specialist/ has a high ID count
For me, the core reasons I imagine, for any newer user, with limited knowledge of iNaturalist or perhaps even of recording nature at all, will be A, B and C. The other reasons seem more connected to users who are more experienced, and who actually choose this regardless of the downsides… arguably, not a completely “Blind” agreement.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS mentioned so far include:
1 - better on-boarding for newer users
2 - renaming the Agree button
3 - making the Withdraw button more visible
4 - giving more weight to IDs by users with experience / less weight to IDs by new users
5 - stripping the “Agree” button entirely
6 - limiting the ability of the OP to use an agree button
Of the possible solutions, I think 1, 2 and 3 are the least contentious and disruptive to the community with clearest benefit and lowest cost. They could all be enacted without any serious downside. In addition, 2 and 3 would be relatively quick to implement, I would imagine.
Number 1 is already being acted on.
Number 2 already has a connected feature request and debate.
This feature request is for number 3.
Of course, this alone will not solve all of the above cases, but it’s a simple change, with no real downside and some significant potential to help, I think.
Much of the above has involved lengthy discussions and been touched on in multiple other threads. For practical reasons, better to read the connected threads and respond in place, not here, I think, for risk of reiterating other arguments or muddying the water.
This is only about whether or not it might be helpful to have the withdraw button more visible.