Is there anything I can do besides attempting to contact the person who probably did this in error? Observation in question is this one.
All you have to do is mark the thumbs up, which it looks like you’ve done. I’ve marked this on accident sometimes (usually by pressing “x” on accident on my keyboard while on the Identify page), so it could have just been a mistake.
3 Likes
Yes, I know I can mark it thumbs up, but it seems to be nullified by someone else having marked it thumbsdown. Or am I wrong about that?
If it’s just you and them, the observer should “win out” on the algorithm
4 Likes
The default assumption is wild, so one vote not wild and one additional vote wild tilts it to wild.
2 Likes
That would be nice but was not what I was seeing, or I would not have posted in the first place. Of course, as I write now, there are 10 votes for wild and one for not wild, so it’s behaving as wild now. It was not, though, when there was one of each, even with the wild vote being the observer (me).
Probably you needed to wait until the system accept your vote, it’s still weird because generally it works immediately and 1vs1 means all votes are eliminated = research grade.
1 Like
Agreed, that’s usually how it works. See this observation of mine that has one vote each way (currently):
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/26131469
That said I have occasionally come across observations which are casual for no obvious reason. I found an observation which was casual with nothing in the Data Quality Assessment. I added an Id and it went from casual to “needs id”. So I’m guessing there is a bug somewhere…
When I first saw this post and the observation, it had one vote wild and one for not wild. The observation was “Needs ID”.
If it happens again please take screenshots and submit a bug report.