Replacing disagreeing ID with lower ID removes disagreement

Platform: Website

Browser, if a website issue: Chrome

URLs (aka web addresses) of any relevant observations or pages: Identify page

Screenshots of what you are seeing:

Description of problem:

Step 1: Provide higher-level disagreeing ID (say, Fabaceae, disagreeing with genus-level ID).

Step 2: Provide new lower-level ID on the same branch (say, Faboideae).

Step 3: It doesn’t ask whether I want to disagree and removes my disagreement (that is, it deletes the higher-level disagreeing ID but replaces it with a non-disagreeing ID, without asking whether I disagree or not).

I know I can work around this by withdrawing my initial ID before adding a new one, but I don’t believe the system should work this way - and it would be easy to miss the fact that your new ID doesn’t disagree as expected.

At the moment of adding your subfamily ID, the community taxon is at family, so it’s not a disagreeing ID and this is intentional behavior.

If you’re proposing the system be changed you could submit a proposal to Feature Requests following the instructions and template there.

1 Like

If you want your new ID to be a disagreement as well, first cancel the previous ID.

6 Likes

I understand this is the system working as it is programmed to, but to me that doesn’t necessarily mean it is not a bug. Did the developers really intend to use the ID that is about to vanish and has no relevance to what the actual community taxon is going to be as part of evaluating community taxon? Since submitting an ID is guaranteed to withdraw your previous ID, it seems just as simple (and much more natural) to have it withdraw your ID before checking for disagreement with the community taxon rather than after, and it doesn’t seem clear to me that it wasn’t just an oversight that it is not done this way.

Of course there’s a really good chance I’m wrong! I could very easily be missing some benefits of having it set up this way. But if this was an intentional choice by the developers I would love to know why it works this way as it seems quite counterintuitive to me.

3 Likes

What I mean by intentional is that there is no feature currently in place that is broken. But one could propose the current state to be changed/improved.

2 Likes

Yeah, I guess the line between “bug” and “design oversight” is a little blurry and I totally respect if this forum draws it somewhere different from where I do.

1 Like

Okay, I guess when you put it that way, it does kind of make sense, in that I can see why it would happen naturally - so thanks for pointing that out.

From ‘not thinking too hard about it’ point of view, though, I don’t think it’s what most people would expect to happen, so maybe I should add a feature request. Meanwhile, I just need to remember to do things in the right order…

2 Likes

Check What’s This to see how the Community Algorithm works for each obs, and then each ID.
Ancestor Disagreement is not how my mind works - so I have learnt to work with it.

This topic was automatically closed after 18 hours. New replies are no longer allowed.