This observation is marked as casual but it makes no sense, the date and location seem correct, in the evaluation of data quality everything seems fine.
Twoppence… did someone flag it as not improvable before the first id was posted?
yep… @nicolasr you need to take off your DQA for “as good as it can get”. Needs 2 IDs to finalise at RG…
The “as good as it can get” isn’t checked any more, and you have added an ID and it is still “casual.” I still don’t understand.
1 Like
note that @nicolasr just added the comment to his ID…
so I have withdrawn mine…
perhaps the taxa is imported but not activated in iNat yet?
http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:282199-2
I don’t think that’s it. I just added that ID to one of my own “Needs ID” observations, and the title at the top turned to “Passiflora linearistipula” and the observation stayed “Needs ID.”
In nonbuggy observations, it requires at least two IDs for checking that box to move it to Casual.
1 Like
you are right! I had always thought it would take it out. A quick experiment confirms it too!
not sure if it matters or not, but the photo here is flagged by the observer as spam. maybe if the only evidence here is questionable, then the entire observation is questionable and therefore casual?
2 Likes
that’ll do it. I solved the flag and it’s now Needs ID
1 Like
why do you suppose someone would mark their own photo as spam?
probably just a misclick, not sure!
Well, from what I can see in the Casual pile, 1 tick at 1 id did use to send something to Casual, and at some point the behavior changed. There are still years’ worth of the old ones stuck in there, but that type of bug is fixable unlike this mystery one.
5 posts were split to a new topic: 3 IDs but still Casual and Unknown