Coming from discussions here.
What do you think the purpose of this “Yes” checkbox is?
- put observation in Needs ID when your disagreeing ID alone isn’t enough to push out of RG
- put species level RG observation that you’ve identified to subspecies back in Needs ID to get confirming subspecies ID
- to counteract “No, it’s as good as it can be” vote
- other (please leave comment)
- I don’t understand the purpose of this checkbox
- I never use this checkbox
i look at it simply as requesting another opinion. For instance i will sometimes check it on my own observations when i want to agree to an ID because I think it is right, but also want someone else to take a look. Though i do that less often since there are often not notifications around these DQA factors
I’ve personally never used the “Yes” box. I only ever use the “No, it’s as good as it can be” check box - since it’s a way to get things to RG at family or genus level when they can’t or it seems like they can’t be IDed to species. I could imagine someone disagreeing and thinking an observation could still be IDed to species, so checking “Yes” as a way to counteract the “No,” though.
That’s a good point – I have also used it to ask for another pair of eyes. In particular, I do this when I suspect the second agree-er is doing a “thank you” agree or is otherwise less trustworthy.
I use the “No, it’s as good as it can be” box for cases like Eleocharis of the E. palustris group (which contains 4 to 11 species that all look similar), to say “It’s Eleocharis, we can’t tell further, lets not waste more time on it.” I’ve never actually used the “Yes” box but I suppose I would if I realized something were marked “No” and it shouldn’t be.
It may help to recast the poll as what should it be for, not what is it for.
It is for anything the current code and algorithm supports.
I sometimes use it when I’m dubious that an RG identification is correct, but not familiar enough with the species in question to put in a disagreeing ID. Basically just to get a few more eyes on it who might be more familiar with it.
To be used by people who can say - can’t tell the species, can’t see the necessary detail on this photo. Or - needs a microscope, or spiders need to be dissected??
Have never used that box.
I use it on my own observations if they go to RG because of other folks, but I’m not convinced and don’t want to enter a disagreeing ID. This has nothing to do with subspecies. Essentially this is @charlie’s ask-for-another-pair-of-eyes approach.
I agree, it is simply a “this could benefit from having more people look at it”. It might be more people that think like me, or it might be others that don’t. I will usually only do so if I feel that “extra eyes” might help, which implies a certain level of knowledge of the taxa myself, and therefore I will typically do so with the expectation that the extra eyes will see the same as me! If I see an identifier that is making IDs I feel might be “over-zealous” then I will mark it as well.
I must say though, that I would tag in other iNatters that I have had dialogue with in the past, far more often than I would set the “can be improved” flag. The opportunity to hold or be part of further discussions represents too great a learning opportunity to pass up!
This / what @graysquirrel said is the main reason I’ve used that checkbox. However, usually when I am identifying and I’m less confident I will identify to genus rather than species so an agreeing ID won’t make it Research Grade (feels a bit silly for monotypic genera though), so that means I use the checkbox less than I would otherwise.
Before I started IDing my observations to genus when I thought it was a certain species, I might use it for an extra set of IDs to confirm the ID. Now I just ID to genus, and when I get 2 species that confirm my initial thought I will switch my ID.
I would also use to counteract a downvote I thought was incorrect.
If I IDed to subspecies, I would use it to try to get a confirming subspecies ID as well.
I wouldn’t bother trying to use it to push something out of RG if a disagreeing ID didn’t accomplish it. If the OP wasn’t convinced they were in error from the disagreeing ID by itself with whatever explanation was provided, they would simply downvote to put it back to RG anyway. I would @ people I consider knowledgeable in that area to have a look at it.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.