I think I agree actually. It would be useful to be able to select this preemptively. To repeat what was clarified above, in the past you could click this when there was no Community ID but it didn’t do anything. Then as soon as someone added another ID it would become effective.
1 Like
I understand why it would be practical in your situation, but there are other scenarios where it is less ideal. You are assuming that your ID is correct and that other users will also be of the opinion that a finer ID is not possible. What happens if this is not the case?
For example: a user selects a species level ID for a difficult taxon and clicks “ID cannot be improved” (maybe they don’t understand the button, or maybe they are trying to circumvent the review process). A taxon specialist comes along and adds a genus level ID, but doesn’t disagree with the species ID. The observation becomes RG with a community taxon at genus level and an observation taxon at species level. Unless the IDer happens to notice that the observation has become RG and checks the box “ID can be improved”, the observation will then be displayed on iNat using the species level ID and, as I understand it, also be shared with other databases using this ID.
For example: you select a genus level ID for a difficult taxon and click “ID cannot be improved” because you know that the photos do not allow for finer ID. Another, less experienced user comes along and selects a species level ID that they believe to be correct because it is the only one mentioned in the popular guidebooks. If you miss the notification, your observation has become RG with an observation taxon at species level.
For example: a user selects a genus level ID for a difficult taxon and clicks “ID cannot be improved”. Another user comes along and adds an ID that pushes the observation back to superfamily level (maybe they suggested a species in a different family, maybe they think that genus is wrong but aren’t certain what it is). The observation becomes casual. Even if the photos are good enough to ID the observation further, it is unlikely to be seen by specialists because it is casual, unless the IDer happens to notice what happened and counters the “ID cannot be improved” vote.
Obviously the cause of the problem in these cases is the way the button is implemented and the way it interacts with the community and observation taxon, but given the status quo and given that not all users will use the button fully understanding what it means, it seems like not activating the button until there is a community ID reduces many of the situations where the button has unintended and undesireable effects.
1 Like
Actually in this situation the research grade goes only to genus level. It looks otherwise on the observation and can be confusing, but the RG level remains at genus. And, not clicking that square wouldn’t prevent this anyhow, though it might get another reviewer maybe.
And yeah it’s possible someone who’s really good with taxa i don’t know well can pick them off by gestalt (the algorithm is also getting good at this) but they can still add a species level ID too.
I get it… kinda. But it feels like they greyed out ‘can not be identified further’ just to grey out the other option and it seems avoidable.
As I noted in my post, I am aware of the difference between the community taxon and the observation taxon. Practically, however, iNat treats such cases as though the observation were RG at species level, even though this is not the community ID, because the observation is searchable and displayed according to the observation taxon. I recall (but was unable to quickly find) some forum discussion where people determined that the ID being shared with GBIF was also the observation taxon, not the community taxon, in such cases.
There is a basic contradiction in declaring that the community ID cannot be improved based on an anticipated community ID – you may have reason to believe you know what it will be, but you cannot actually know for certain in advance that other members of the community will agree with your assessment. You are asserting this based on a single ID. That’s why I feel like there is a sense in which checking it preemptively can be seen as circumventing the community review process, even if this is done with the best intentions.
If the button worked differently – say, if it were applied to the particular ID and not to the observation – some of these issues would become irrelevant. I would be in favor of tweaking how the button works, as has been suggested in various feature requests. Unlike the other DQA items, it is applied to an element of the observation that is fairly dynamic, but it remains checked even if the situation to which it originally applied (a specific ID) has changed.
4 Likes
Yes, the observation taxon is what is sent to GBIF, not the community taxon, which while a separate issue, is a massive one, that is related.
3 Likes
On a slightly tangential point, it is great that the ‘Yes, it can be improved’ button is greyed out. There was a tendency for people who didn’t know what it was for to click this when they first added their own ID at a higher level, and so it stayed in the NeedsID pile until the fourth or fifth person ID’d and thought ‘why isn’t this research grade already!?’ and countervoted.
4 Likes
oof, i didn’t realize that. That’s an issue regardless of this greying out thing, and should be fixed or tweaked somehow. I do agree in the long term we need a better solution than just reversing this greyed out check box. But i do think greying it out until you have another ID still does more harm than good. I suppose different people use iNat differently so it’s hard to find something that’s more broadly useful
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.