Platform: Multiple (backend issue I believe)
URLs (aka web addresses) of any relevant observations or pages: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/316652661, https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/316869357
Screenshots of what you are seeing:
Description of problem:
Step 1: Leave a species-level ID on an observation (with no IDs). This species must be within a species complex, e.g. Eupeodes americanus.
Step 2: Another person leaves a disagreeing ID on that observation at the rank of species complex, e.g. Eupeodes americanus complex.
Step 3: A third person leaves an ID agreeing at the species complex level.
Expected behavior: The observation should automatically fulfill the requirements for research grade (given it meets all the other requirements).
Actual behavior: The observation is at Needs ID, with the cited reason for it not being RG as “Community Taxon is precise”. This goes against my understanding of species complexes - if two species complex IDs (that agree with each other) are left on an observation with no other IDs, isn’t that enough for research grade automatically? EDIT: I was incorrect here; it seems I didn’t realize the RG species complex observations I was seeing had a vote under “No, it’s as good as it can be”.
There’s a relatively simple fix - clicking “No, it’s as good as it can be”, but this does seem underused on iNat, and I see no reason why an observation with a community ID of a species complex as described above shouldn’t be research grade automatically.