One account adding the same ID to an observation multiple times

It might be worth noting that when an ID is deleted, the observation is automatically un-followed and might be un-reviewed.

1 Like

Even if it is a duplicate ID and you still have another ID on the same observation? I didn’t know that.

(I am in general far too careless with marking stuff as reviewed or (un-)following observations. Sometimes I think of it, sometimes I don’t and then wonder why I have seen an observation before in the ID module… :D)

Improving your own IDs at a later date is totally fine (more than just fine, actually. It shows that, as you said, you are learning and that you put effort into your IDs which is great! :D )

I think it likely that the thing I mentioned is either down to poor connectivity or clicking agree on everything, as people here in this thread suggested.

2 Likes

No - you are not with me.
They said - duh - it’s A Plant.
I said - then at least make it a dicot.

And when the ID moves to useful, then, I will delete my dicot - as it is just clutter.
I will unfollow when the ID process no longer interests me.

That will, still bring you notifications (unless you unfollow). And be reviewed.

If I delete an ID, it unfollows, regardless of another ID remaining. Before I knew this, I missed a lot of updates. On the web page, the drop down might not register the unfollow it until it’s refreshed.

For unreviewing, though, when I just tried, after deleting the last of two of my IDS and refreshing, in one observation, it remained reviewed and in a another, it unreviewed. I tried multiple times in each.

1 Like

I edited the title to make the issue more clear.

1 Like

Precisely what I was thinking as I’ve been reading through this thread. We’re all here to help each other. :)

the other day, i noticed something like this happening in my area for a Hemipteran taxon. i asked the identifier about their process, and they said that they were using a “macro tool” to speed up identification. i didn’t totally understand what they were describing, but it sounded like the tool was going through and agreeing to everything on the page (presumably because these were likely to be correct anyway), and then they were following up one by one. something like that…

on their own, they said they had decided to stop using that process. so i guess a little conversation / feedback goes a long way.

Hmm, OK. That sounds like machine generated content.

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.