Why is the community ID here not “Swamp Cicada?”
because the family-level ID was made with a “branch” disagreement. the best thing is for the person who made the family-level ID to withdraw the ID.
just a note for the future: it’s often helpful to an observation ID, or a link to the observation, to help diagnose problems for specific observations.
1 Like
To the right of the observation, where it says Community taxon… if you click on “About”, there is also a helpful breakdown of the agreements, how they count, and an explanation of the algorithm.
2 Likes
This explains the mechanics of the algorithm that get’s that community ID. But my question is what’s benefit of this particular algorithm? Why are we avoiding making “Swamp Cicada” the community ID? To me even without the 2nd “Swamp Cicada” ID, “Swamp Cicada” seems the sensible community ID. Then after the 2nd research grade seems sensible. Is there something I’m not understanding where making that the community ID would cause problems? Can someone provide an example case scenerio? Is there a writeup anywhere that explains the reasoning of the algorithm?
you should read this thread: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/change-wording-used-by-the-system-when-downgrading-an-observation-to-an-higher-level-taxa/3862/60.
2 Likes
Also, a summary perhaps of the outcome of the thread @pisum linked to I think(?)
and the proposed changes, are detailed by staff here
https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/25514-clarifying-ancestor-disagreements
Basically, as I understand/remember it, I think this is going to be changed soon(?)
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.