Offer the ability to choose whether to hard disagree or not to the next finest level that the current identifications support, when one disagrees with the current community id

Offer the ability to choose whether to hard disagree or not to the next finest level that the current identifications support, when one disagrees with the current community id. There seems to have been a gaffe, when a bunch of blues (butterflies) were id-d as frogs. I id-d many as butterflies, not intending to contradict their id as blues, just not support it. But I have no option to put this butterfly id in as supporting butterflies, not blues, and definitely not supporting frogs. IF I remove the butterfly id, the obs goes back to Animal, as the frog id is still there, and there isn’t any prompt generated by removing and then re-adding it.
This would be better if instead, on adding a butterfly id, the system computed, as it did, that the new community id was lepidoptera, and that there was still some disagreement, since every other lepidoptera id was of blues, and so now mine is disagreeing with the new majority (of those agreeing with the community id), and ask me whether I meant to disagree explicitly.
You need to calculate community id not just with my id, but also what the community id without my id, but descendant of my id / compatible with my id, is.
Tl:dr; Butterfly cannot but disagree with frog, but it is possible for it to agree with more specific butterfly ids.

I might not be understanding fully, but Lepidoptera is already inherently an explicit disagreement with frog, so it doesn’t make sense for the disagreement pop-up to offer a disagreement with “frogs”. Best to just choose the green button, to ID as Lepidoptera and not disagree with Leptotes (blues).

I can’t chose to I’d with lepidoptera and not disagree with leptotes, which is the problem. When I id initially it counts as a disagreement with leptotes. If I remove the I’d to try again and not disagree the observation reverts to animals or whatever, which is ssquare one. Unless everybody nhad already brought it to leptotes, I can’t put butterflies without disagreeing with the leptotes ids.

Could not at the time of offering my ids in these.

Can you share a screenshot of what you mean that Lepidoptera is disagreeing with Leptotes

This should be common blues ,as that is the only lepidoptera sbclassification here, and there are 3 of them.
The reason it is butterflies and moths is that all of us (besides the frog identifiers) agree hat it is butterflies and moths, but some of us have left our id at butterflies /butterflies and moths, thus (acting as if) it is disagreeing with common blues.

If I withdraw my id it reverts to Animals.

I cannot add this id again in a way to show that I do not disagree with the finer classification. But if the algorithm took into account that I do not disagree, then that is 3 ids for common blues, and one potentially disagreeing id for butterflies and moths (not counting my own), which should bring this still to common blues, provided frogs are considered ruled out by dint of five people voting against frogs.

The algorithm could therefore be more subtle, in tallying up which taxa are currently supported by the majority of identifiers /who are considered to have identifications which are non-maverick, i.e., along the same descending chain of the taxonomic tree (here butterflies)/.

This one is stuck as Lepidoptera despite there being a leading id of ‘pea blue’. Were there not frog ids, the title (but not community id) would be ‘pea blue’, esp as it was given first and then the lepidopteras came afterwards. My complaint is partly that the follow up lepidoptera ids are not offered the box to explicitly disagree or not disagree to pea blue, as at the time they are added, the id is still considered ‘animals’ (and they clearly don’t disagree with that).

When the frog ids are discarded (marked as maverick), they should be completely ignored. From then, the ids which count are all in the butterfly chain.