Like @paul_dennehy, I appreciate your explanation of your thinking for using the “Yes, it can be improved” option. But the caution others have added is most appropriate: To most of us, and the intent on iNat I think, is that that particular DQA be reserved for cases reviewed by people well-informed of any particular ID challenges with a species or set of species. In such cases, a vote for “No, it’s as good as it can be” for a genus (or higher)-level ID is a mark of a taxonomic “brick wall”.
Related topics
| Topic | Replies | Views | Activity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Is it okay to use the Data Quality checkboxes to return an observation to Needs ID status? | 12 | 339 | August 24, 2024 | |
| Eliminate the observation-level "Can the Community Taxon be Improved?" DQA item in favor of an ID-level "Cannot be Improved" flag | 13 | 1003 | September 18, 2024 | |
| No longer able to preemptively mark community taxon as unable to be improved | 27 | 544 | November 22, 2024 | |
| All it takes is 1 person to overturn a genus level research grade ID if you tick "no" on "Based on the evidence, can the Community Taxon still be confirmed or improved?" | 10 | 667 | February 20, 2025 | |
| Why does "Based on the evidence, can the Community Taxon still be confirmed or improved?" exist on the Data Quality Assessment? | 26 | 665 | March 3, 2025 |