Yikes. No, totally not my intention here.
If my passion and enthusiasm for change and debate sounds heavy-handed then apologies! I’m certainly not a natural when it comes to navigating social media. I get that the comment you mention sounds a bit presumptive. If there’s something else that I’ve said or done to lead you to this larger comment, then please flag it up for me to be more self-aware.
The issue of “blind agreement by OP” that this stems partly from was raised by many on the blog post following the recent agree button change. So, certainly not alone I think in believing this to be a bigger issue. I tried to list in original post all the reasons I could think of that people might blindly agree and why this was problematic. If you think I am missing something, let me know and I will add it in.
My personal perception that part of this might involve people desiring to resolve an observation is based on a few recent experiences, including:
As an identifier - having queried a user recently on their agreement…and they told me it was to “keep it tidy”.
A thread I came across debating the term Research Grade I think, where someone else posited that people wanted it to reach RG in order to have a sense of resolution.
comments I’m reading from users such as @cattailsandcobwebs who said they felt they had to “either a.) fix it or b.) leave it as a disagreement.”
For me psychologically, this rang true that some newer users might feel they have to resolve an ID. But, maybe I’m wrong on that.
100%. I think we’re on the same page here, no?
I am suggesting change to help prevent observations going to RG without sufficient input from the community. I have no issue with things remaining at a higher taxa.
That’s distinct I would say from, for example…my mum leaving a conflicting observation ID because she literally can’t find or does not understand where the withdraw button is. (Another trigger for me to post this). This just takes unnecessary community energy, as it means more people have to pile on to overpower an autosuggested ID to correct it. This is just disempowering her, without benefit.
I absolutely agree that iNaturalist should be a safe space for making mistakes!
One of the many many reasons I am a big fan of the platform.
But design issues on a bike that cause children to fall off more won’t teach them how to cycle better.
Whether the current design does induce the mistakes we are seeing or not, is absolutely up for debate.
I am just positing, that some aspects in place right now might be part of the problem.
And I guess asking, if so, what might they be?
I would argue, we could also say at present they are “coerced” into taking “the wrong action”.
My central thought, is simply to make it clear how and why to withdraw. Good UI design all hangs around recognition of affordance. Designing affordance involves exploring how best to visually explain to people how an interface functions. These are choices to make, like it or not.
All design, arguably, could be seen as coercive to some extent(?)
Do you feel the current interface explains perfectly all the functions available?
Is there nothing you would consider changing that might help with existing issues?
Is considering what that change might be, for you, coercive?