Observation not displaying species name with 2 IDs and no disagreeing ID


The observation in the link below will not change name despite trying to update it a couple of times from the old identification system by adding my identification again (which usually works). In other situations, I have sometimes been able to get the other person with the agreeing ID to update on their end and it works, but it is still problematic.


It looks like the generic Euphorbia identification is causing the “disagreement” as it would have under the old system.



I went ahead and gave it an ID. That appears to have fixed it. Someone submit an ID as ‘Spurges’ and clicked ‘No, but I’m sure it’s in the genus Euphorbia’. It’s all good now.



Thanks for the ID, but actually, the problem isn’t that the ID was ‘No, but I’m sure it’s in the genus Euphorbia’ because that will always lead to text under the ID saying, " * [username] disagrees this is [previous ID]". The IDs here were initially made when all IDs were treated as disagreeing IDs (2-3 years ago). These usually update when you add an ID again, but this one didn’t (which is why I treated it as a bug). I’ve had this trouble a couple of other times before.



I agree that the ones under the old system usually update to the new when an identification is added. I have done this where I have no clue as to the ID. I just click agree and then delete my ID, and it displays under the new system. I’ve never noticed that not working.



you can also cause an update by marking anything on data quality assessment - mark it as wild or accurately mapped or something and it should update



At the time of your first comment, it was 2/3 species and 3/3 genus. It needs to be greater than 2/3 to CID at species. Withdrawing/remaking your ID doesn’t change that! The additional species level ID tipped the balance. The genus level ID in this case is explicit by virtue of being prior to the explicit disagreement feature being implemented. Even the suggested DQA marking won’t tip the balance.



Under all situations I’ve run across, it only requires two agreeing identifications if there is no disagreeing identification. After the change in ID system, higher-level identifications were treated as non-disagreeing identifications. As such, the Euphorbia ID should have been treated as a non-disagreeing ID meaning that the two species level identifications should have been enough to reach research grade or at use E. fendleri as the display name. It’s possible I’m missing something, but this is what I’ve observed and come to expect.



That is definitely the case for IDs after the change. Have you seen early observations (before the explicit feature) where it treats higher level as non-disagreeing?



I’m pretty sure I have. After the change, most of the observations sorted themselves out under the new rules without much issue (I made a lot of IDs before the switch). Some did have to be refreshed in the ways mentioned above, but very few presented the problem I have here, essentially requiring a second agreeing ID to refresh the observation, which is why I added this as a bug. I suppose I could be wrong as it has been a long time and I don’t comb through the observations I reviewed in the past very often, but that is what I remember.



I’ll watch out for it and see if we can get some good examples to figure it out

1 Like


Sounds good. I’ll keep an eye out for more examples too.



A genus ID following 2 species IDs like that, made prior to implementation of the explicit disagreement feature, was treated as an explicit disagreement. So it makes sense that additional species ID was required.

Since I’m not seeing a bug here, I’m going to close this report.


closed #13