It is my understanding that a missing date will relegate an observation to Casual status, as will a “No” vote (or majority of “No” votes) for the DQA question “Date is accurate?”
Aside from the former status being automatic and the latter being democratic, is there any practical difference in the net result for either type of observation? I.e., Both would be accessible in a search of observations by unchecking “verifiable” in a filter, and thus visible on a map or accessible to identifiers, etc.
Is that correct?
I believe so.
1 Like
Thanks, Barbara. I would like to get some formal feedback from staff or other curators; this question was originally posted to the Curators category but was moved here.
So, @tiwane @loarie @kueda Please point me in the right direction: One user recently begged people not to vote “No” on the DQAs for records with obviously false/made-up dates because that vote (i.e. the resulting Casual status) would make them “invisible” to potential identifiers and would “remove” them from maps. My counter-argument is simple: (1) wrong dates are just that–inaccurate; and (2) simply unchecking “Verifiable” restores the visibility of any/all such Casual records in any search. Is my understanding correct?
1 Like
that is a valid reason to apply DQA votes. Identifiers can choose to work thru Casual for something that might interest them. Similar issue around some observers don’t mark Not Wild until they have an ID. iNat should split Needs ID from Not Wild - and let identifiers set their own filters to suit.
1 Like
Both will show up on maps and search results if you uncheck verifiable. In the latter case the observation still has a date attached to it, so it will turn up in searches for observations made on that date (if you’re including casual observations in your search). I just tested this on our test server.
Yes. If a date is not accurate, please vote no in the DQA.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.