Previous disagreemeent limiting ID to lower taxa

Not sure I´ve noticed this before, but here, the disagreement from Raineria actually prevents Ophrys from taking it to the right taxa. Is this a bug?

I corroborated the ID of Ophrys to try and push it, but it remains stuck on flies.
If not a bug, doesn´t this kind of defy the logic of the disagree option(?), as the disagreement is only for Psilidae, not every other fly family

Both Psilidae and Dryomyza anilis are members of the taxon acalyprate flies – the disagreeing Diptera ID, by backing it up all the way to Diptera, is also disagreeing its an acalyprate fly.


Ahhh I see. Ok, that seems logical to some extent…
Although it gives a single identifier a lot of power over the observation then?
Especially if wielded without realising …and in inverts where we don´t have so many active identifiers.

For me at least I didn´t realise it worked like that, so good to know.
I think there´s quite a few other observations I must´ve accidentally limited in this way! :flushed:

Will ask Raineria to withdraw / change then.


If you click What’s This at Community Taxon
iNat spells out in meticulous detail - must be - more than - two thirds majority agreeing.
2 out of 3 doesn’t win.

Sure. I have dug into that dynamic on another question also! :)

But my query on this was different.
Essentially I now have an observation where:

1 person has given a coarse ID of “Flies” but not Psilidae
2 people have given a species level ID …which is not Psilidae

So in this instance, all 3 IDs are compatible - there is no disagreement inherent in these IDs.

Typically, under the 2 thirds rule and disregarding the use of the disagreement button, these 3 IDs would take the observation to species…not leave it stuck at “Flies”.

+In this instance, I just think it would make more sense for the disagreement to be affecting any identifications which are Psilidae… but not all acalyptrate flies as @bouteloua explained.

I think I vaguely get the logic of it… but ultimately, I just think its counterintuitive…as its clearly not what the person who disagreed meant …When the user disagreed with Psilidae and bumped it up to Flies, I´m sure he wasn´t disagreeing with all Acalyptrate flies… he was just disagreeing with Psilidae.

So, I just think the effect of the disagree button is a bit weird in this situation.
And not something most people would know to be wary of…

Though, that said, I think a lot of people don´t know how the disagree button works either!
+In any case, also lots of other comments / threads about the overhaul of the disagree button.
So imagine this all might change at some point… :)

Annnnnnnd… you know, minor issue perhaps if I am only just realising it after 6000 observations! :)

More info here:


Ahhh awesome.
That´ll fix it! Nice.

That is an odd system. That observation should be fixed now I’ve withdrawn “Diptera”.
I’m obliged to reassign observations which are in the incorrect Family, keeping the project at clear of errors. I do this for example on Neriidae which don’t occur in Europe.
Assigning to a correct Family though, presupposes expertise which I don’t possess.
So we don’t have a fix.


Thanks @rainieria! + for all your input on Psilidae in general! :)

Is your comment in response to the last post that @jwidness linked to which explains the origin of all this and proposed changes? Or just the other points mentioned here?

I thought the linked proposed changes sounded like they would fix it… but reading again I´m not 100% sure. Maybe I´m just a bit sleepy.

I wonder if a better version might be just to have a single “I´m certain its not …”
Along with a dropdown menu of the taxonomic tree that you can cut according to the branch you want. I imagine the iNaturalist designers probably already have a billion peoples opinions on this already though anyhow! So they probably don´t need me chiming in :D

But yes, there are proposed changes coming which will impact this in any case…

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