Added now in the original post. Thanks for the rapid change.
Question about such a case:
Do you agree that I flag the DQA “Evidence for an organism”, and advise other people to do so?
It is in the “State of matter Life” pool because some identifiers put this ID.
Isn’t it inconsistent to have the ability to put “State of matter Life” as an ID, and besides this to call for help to fix the “State of matter Life” cases?
Suggestion: as an exception (compared to other taxons), forbid to ID with the “State of matter Life” taxon. (And/Or add a popup suggesting to use DQA instead, with a link to guidelines).
“State of matter Life” is not the most appetizing. You have courage!
I think the problem is with the wording of the DQA item, because there are organisms in the photo. If it said “Evidence of Observer’s Identification” I would give it a thumbs-down.
Do you mean as follows: the observer didn’t give an evidence about what is supposed to be identified? (The grass, the turtle, the bird,…?)
If the two identifiers had not put State of matter Life as an ID, this observation would remain State of matter Life (SomL) because of the conflicting Animal Kingdom and Plant Kingdom and the way the 2/3 weight works.
The image does appear to support the finer identification of Western Pond Turtle but does support the identification of Poales. I have agreed and the observation is no longer SomL - I adjusted it to 3/4.
There is evidence of life, just not a turtle.
In this case, I mean the observer said it was a turtle and there is no evidence of a turtle.
But I would also like a DQA box for cases where there is more than one possibility of a subject but the observer didn’t specify, instead of the way it is now where people add IDs for different organisms.
Even worse, the observer can be inconsistent with his own specification:
The observer put “Host: lettuce” as a description. (Meaning he does not focus on the lettuce).
Later, someone else + the observer put an ID about the lettuce. (Inconsistent with the initial description).
Later someone else focused on a fungi parasiting the host plant. (Consistent).
And now we are left with “State of matter Life”.
In this case, the solution is to ask the identifiers to remove their lettuce ID?
Update: I was wrong, see below.
It is consistent to be able to ID something State of matter Life if an Observer submits an image with multiple Phyla but failed to Identify the focus of the image and left it Unknown. This could occur in an image taken in the littoral zone of the seashore or at a densely vegetated well attended watering hole.
However, my preference would be to either contact the Observer to ask for refinement of the observation or failing that, select the most obvious. Putting the observation as State of matter Life, to me, relegates the observation to the back as discussed here https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/state-of-matter-life-limbo/2870
I think this is still an exploration of what organism is “infecting” the lettuce. Currently it would seem both identifications are valid. Time will tell which ID becomes correct. Unfortunately it is quite possible that those filtering for Chromista and/or Fungi will not see this unless they are also scouring State of matter Life.
Just a little graph to show comparisons visually. Apologies if I have broken statistical/presentational cardinal rules:
Thanks for clarifying!
In such a case, I can’t help identifying (not knowledgeable). But someone understanding that this is still an exploration, could flag with a “Conflicting Kingdoms” DQA, so that all experts in search for Chromista or Fungi observations would find it? The flag would be automatically cleared once the community taxon goes below a reasonable level.
(I’m always in search for ways to automate/assist the processes, I believe it could speed up things, and as a consequence reduce the volume of the pool).
When I’m looking at Unknowns, I try to consider the value of each observation. If it’s a clear, detailed photo of something that seems remarkable for some reason, I will go ahead and add “Life,” just to get it in the smaller pool. But if it’s a photo of multiple organisms at a distance and none of them seem either unusual or detailed enough to get to much of a refined ID, I usually just leave it, simply because I think having too much in State of Matter Life would discourage experts from browsing through there very much.
I think it would be great if taxon search feature results could include observations in State of Matter Life with IDs of that taxon.
Going through the numbers again to see changes in observations in State of matter Life
There are three numbers in brackets: the first is the number of observations including that taxon that are in State of matter Life from the original post as of May 23, 2019 ; the second is as of December 12, 2019; the third is as of January 29, 2020. Considering that many new observations are being added all the time, it appears that there is lots of work being done to move these observations further up the tree of life.
Fungi and Lichens (2,598); (1,179); (1,106)
Slime Moulds (405); (234); (202)
Cyanobacteria (235); (243); (291)
Green Algae (559); (556); (535)
Red Algae (?); (745); (676)
Brown Algae (692); (756); (697)
Sac Fungi (955); (756); (410)
Animal (3,726); (1,528); (1,492)
Plant (5,351); (2,482); (2,330)
Many thanks to everyone.
Going through the State of matter Life numbers again. There are three numbers in brackets: the first is the number of observations including that taxon that are in State of matter Life from the original post as of May 23, 2019 ; the second is as of December 12, 2019; the third is as of April 8, 2020.
Fungi and Lichens (2,598); (1,179); (1,302)
Slime Moulds (405); (234); (238)
Cyanobacteria (235); (243); (333)
Green Algae (559); (556); (588)
Red Algae (?); (745); (655)
Brown Algae (692); (756); (690)
Sac Fungi (955); (756); (462)
Animal (3,726); (1,528); (1,595)
Plant (5,351); (2,482); (2,551)
I have copied the links having at least one suggested ID of the listed taxon from the start of this thread just so those that are familiar with the topic do not need to go back and forth. You may want to check the Place setting in your identification page filter to see if it is limiting the breadth of you efforts in case you wish a broader reach with this topic.
7 posts were merged into an existing topic: Should the Curator Guide be updated in regards to obvious wrong IDs on observations of humans?
Just doing a little FYI catchup on numbers. I have included the taxon id after the taxon. There are four numbers in brackets: the first is the number of observations including that taxon that are in State of matter Life from the original post as of May 23, 2019 ; the second is as of December 12, 2019; the third is as of April 8, 2020; the fourth is as of June 28, 2020
Fungi and Lichens - 47170: (2,598); (1,179); (1,302); (2,074)
Slime Moulds - 47684: (405); (234); (238); (540)
Cyanobacteria - 67334: (235); (243); (333); (370)
Green Algae - 50863: (559); (556); (588); (647)
Red Algae - 57774: (?); (745); (655); (715)
Brown Algae - 48220: (692); (756); (690); (805)
Sac Fungi - 48259: (955); (756); (462); (668)
Animal - 1: (3,726); (1,528); (1,595); (2,159)
Plant - 47126: (5,351); (2,482); (2,551); (3,374)
Not sure if the (non?) City Nature Challenge this year would have impacted the uptick.
Just posting the current state of affairs for State of matter Life.
One correction of my previous post for the Sac Fungi ID number.
There are now five numbers in brackets: The first is the number of observations including that taxon that are in State of matter Life from the original post as of May 23, 2019 ; the second is as of December 12, 2019; the third is as of April 8, 2020; the fourth is as of June 28, 2020.
The last number of each taxon in bold is as of 11:30am PST December 8, 2020.
Fungi and Lichens - 47170: (2,598); (1,179); (1,302); (2,074); (4,035)
Slime Moulds - 47684: (405); (234); (238); (540); (1,165)
Cyanobacteria - 67334: (235); (243); (333); (370); (455)
Green Algae - 50863: (559); (556); (588); (647); (796)
Red Algae - 57774: (?); (745); (655); (715); (794)
Brown Algae - 48220: (692); (756); (690); (805); (932)
Sac Fungi - 48250: (955); (756); (462); (668); (1,551)
Animal - 1: (3,726); (1,528); (1,595); (2,159); (3,292)
Plant - 47126: (5,351); (2,482); (2,551); (3,374); (4,836)
We have a little slippage going on here where numbers are approaching or surpassing the numbers when this project first started. Feel free to pitch in where you feel you can make a difference. Many thanks.
Just a mention that sometimes the OP errs by typing in their choice of ID and selects a homonym instead from the subsequent dropdown menu. For instance there is a plant genus Oligochaeta and annelid subclass Oligochaeta
I have also noticed this happen to seasoned identifiers of insects selecting a conflicting homonym.
It is a very easy and honest error to make. My approach is to make a polite comment directed to that particular identifier with @OPusername. I will also politely PM the seasoned identifier because often they get a plethora of notifications and may overlook your mention.
Even if you are not confident yourself to add an ID, your comment may help a subsequent identifier balance the observation in a more positive direction.
You may also notice that by checking the OP profile that they are no longer active on iNaturalist. I do this check on older observations where the OP has very few observations.
Looking at the numbers again. I found a handy markdown table generator to help make a table that perhaps is more readable.
Realize that taxon such as Fungi and Slime Moulds may be conflicting with each other so that 10 conflicts will increase the numbers by 10 for each taxon.
|Conflicting Taxon||Taxon ID #||May 23, 2019||Dec 12, 2019||Apr 08, 2020||Jun 28, 2020||Dec 08, 2020||Mar 10, 2021|
|Fungi and Lichens||47170||2,598||1,179||1,302||2,074||4,035||4,215|
|All State of matter Life||48460||22,265|
It does not take much for an observation to move to the root of the tree of life - with the community taxon generally needing more than 2/3 agreement, it can take more than one to move the balance in the desired direction. If there are multiple conflicting identifications, it can take that much more input to help. It may take a tag/mention to help move the balance otherwise the observation just waits until the next identifier happens upon the observation.
The natural process of identification will cause the numbers to ebb and flo however, if focused effort to decrease these conflicts do not happen, there will be accelerated growth here.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.