For comparison, here’s an example that works the way I expect.
Observation: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/38654216
1 Like
Shortly after I posted the previous example, a user add an identification to the observation. The result is what I expect.
I would guess it’s by design that the 2nd ID in this example wouldn’t “knock back” the observer’s original, more refined ID, to species.
As @jdmore says, another of many issues with the difference between Observation Taxon (what’s at the top of the page) and the Community Taxon (on the righthand side). The Research Grade label should apply only to the Community Taxon, but the current system and all exports actually apply the label to the Observation Taxon. There’s an associated feature request here: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/search-by-observation-taxon-or-community-taxon/3620
1 Like
Found a similar one, yes, it’s about Observation Taxon. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/41114108
(I merged some posts from a related bug report here.)
1 Like
We also notice this problem in this example: https://inaturalist.lu/observations/72988618
The observer added it with a subspecies (which definitely does not occurrent in the region) determination, I then added the correct species ID, which lead to the record becoming RG with the subsp. ID, which also got uploaded to GBIF: https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/3079622715
which is definitely not how it should work.
By now a third person added a species ID and it is not correctly displayed.
When the species ID was added, the user would have been shown a pop-up prompting them to [possibly] explicitly disagree with the ssp. ID. They did not choose this option, and thus why the behaviour occurred. Another user has since added a species ID, but did explicitly disagree with the ssp., so you’ll notice the ID has now shifted to the species. The GBIF record will update now at the next uptake.
1 Like
Ok thanks,
I might in fact not have done so (popup) when I did that species level ID.
But I find it still confusing that my species level ID (and lacking disagreement with subsp. ID) triggered the observation to become RG on subsp. level. I would have expected it to become RG on species level, even without me disagreeing to the subsp. ID.
Yes, it happens a lot now, if first id is ssp. next one will make it RG, it should be fixed!
1 Like
Given this sequence of IDs, what do you think the status of this observation should be?
- Research Grade at species (Trillium albidum)
- Needs ID at subspecies (Trillium albidum parviflorum)
0 voters
(For reference, the system currently makes it RG at subspecies. Also, the reverse situation, where the species is the first ID and the subspecies is the second ID is RG at species.)
I thought that would be RG at species, and need a second subspecies vote to force it to subspecies? I have misunderstood how iNat does that.
IIRC, the Community taxon would be at species, so technically it would be RG at species. However, the Observation Taxon would be subspecies and it would show up in subspecies searches, so it would be functionally RG at subspecies.
2 Likes
The ideal way is to have RG at species and to still be shown in searches for needs ID for ssp.
1 Like
I believe the reason the frog observation is RG is because someone clicked on “No, it is as good as it can be”. I just clicked on “Yes” and it went back to not being RG. I assume the person who clicked on “No” believed it couldn’t be identified to species because of the condition of the dead frog, but I don’t know for sure.
Ideally Trillium albidum [RG] ssp. parviflorum [NID]. Simultaneously RG for the species and still requiring confirmation for subspecies