To begin with, i’m sorry if this is not the correct place to start the topic or if there is already an existing one.
Before creating this post I read:
And this two concerning points of view between different users
Yesterday I have a heated debate with some curators about the use of the DQA.
A user posted a photo of two blurred spots alleging they were a bird species commenting that the camera would not focus but he saw them. Perfect.
When I saw this observation I marked in the DQA “evidence of organism” as no because for me those two spots could be birds, a blot on the camera lens or two UFO. So the observation went casual.
I was asked from one of those curators to justify my vote. And so I did.
Apparently my interpretarion was not right because “the best thing to do is to just not vote on the DQA for that option, since we have a lack of knowledge” and “We don’t need to “see” evidence for an observation to stay at what the original identifier says something is. We don’t have to disagree.”
In my opinion the use of the DQA is just as valid as puting an ID in another people observation or markin a cultivated plant as such but I would like to know more points of view of how you deal with those kind of observations.