Move "can the Community Taxon still be confirmed or improved?" checkboxes in Identify portal

Based on recent discussions in this thread https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/needs-id-pile-and-identifications/26904/49, I think it would be useful to move the “taxon improvement” question from the Data Quality tab to the front of the Identify portal. This should increase usage and favorably reduce the ‘Needs ID’ pile. The “Captive/Cultivated” Box is already more visible and helpful to have in this location.

Edit: Also, please make the text on the bottom left side of the Identify portal scaleable or in two lines by default to fit all screen sizes.

I may generally agree with this, but would add:

Maybe the entire DQA should move higher on the page, in a condensed view where all the sections only all become visible once the button is clicked. Doing so would help simplify the page view and avoid identifiers using it without understanding the meaning.

People noted “can ID still be confirmed or improved” can be problematic if users incorrectly select the wrong answer. So, I’d suggest this be changed to require more votes (for no) before it has a large effect on casual vs. verifiable/RG grade.

Lastly just to know, would any issues result from users selecting “yes, can be confirmed” too much? For example, if the first identifier IDs genus and selects “yes,” would that be unnecessary or in any way slow down RG if two identifiers subsequently ID the correct species?

I’d also suggest that a new checkbox should be added here so that these observations which are removed from the needs ID pool can be filtered out easily. That way if the button is pressed when it shouldn’t be the observation isn’t hopelessly lost to casual. It could be called “Not identifiable” and would fit here

image

If there are any 2 IDs on an observation, checking the No box will make it RG or Casual, which then makes you able to filter from Needs ID.

1 Like

Say that a new uses accidentally checks to box on something that’s identified as Plantae. The observation then goes casual. I want a way to search through these which have been tagged as not being able to have their ID improved. Once they go into casual one would have to look through all the cultivated and observations missing dates and locations in order to find that observation which was incorrectly tagged.

3 Likes

In the regular web view?

As it is, this option is underused and I’m not sure it helps the site to require more people to agree. I haven’t seen cases of abuse yet, but I understand the concern.

This is worth making a separate feature request

I have. They pop up regularly in the “Why is this Needs ID/ Casual / Research grade megathread” when this is incorrectly checked. Not necessarily abuse, but it was certainly checked incorrectly.

3 Likes

Yes it would be nice to have a simple button. Tentatively I think I could assemble a long URL to do something close, but it certainly wouldn’t be convenient.

If you mean do I mean desktop version, yes. I suggest the entire DQA (including additional options) be moved higher up on the page, but maybe where it’s collapsed until you click it and then it expands.

Well I mostly mean requiring more votes for “no, taxon cannot be improved.” Because I’ve seen that checked overly much, when sometimes ID is possible.

I understand. Since my request is focused on the identify part of the desktop experience, perhaps this deserves a separate request.

I won’t, have never, ticked - ID can’t be improved.

If the option is made more visible - it needs to spell out - it’s not I can’t ID that spider

It is - spider experts could not ID that spider. Not enough info in the photo or supporting notes.

Or the taxon needs a popup warning - cannot be IDed to species without microscopic examination of dead spider. Then the ‘No’ would simply confirm the popup for this obs.

Ideally there should be way to filter out all kinds of reasons that make observation casual separately.

3 Likes

It would indeed. The one major problem with that checkbox is that it doesn’t become unchecked when a new ID is added. So the one genus ID, plus the two species IDs, should result in RG - but it doesn’t, because the observation can (as far as the site knows) be perpetually improved. So more species IDs pile on, it isn’t RG, people go “Aargh” and finally someone comes along who thinks to check the DQA. They counteract the yes vote and the observation becomes RG. Big, unnecessary hassle, just from that one checkbox.

3 Likes

For smaller screen sizes, it is already pretty cramped, and some of the current text is even hidden in certain languages.

For high volume IDers, you can use SHIFT to very quickly bring you to the DQA. Of all the DQA items, I probably use this DQA item second-least frequently (“recent evidence of an organism” being the least frequently used.)

The Identify page also doesn’t actually display what the Community Taxon is, so that could be problematic if the intent is to increase the use of this DQA item. (For example, in the above, the Community Taxon is Haplorhini, not Cebus capucinus.)

2 Likes

Can’t it be placed in two rows instead of one?

For example, if I’m scrolling Hymenoptera and I come across an observation in Needs ID with 3 agreeing genus level ant IDs by the top identifiers, it’s clear that the community taxon cannot be improved further. My hope is that making this option more visible (from last tab to directly under the pictures) increases awareness and utilization.

3 Likes