Cleaning up CV issue through Identify. User entered genus (w/o having used CV), I agreed to genus and marked DQA “no, it’s a good as it can be”. Genus Desmia became Research Grade.
User then decided to use CV and added a species, and it went to Research Grade without 2 agrees and still marked “as good as it can be”.
When I removed the DQA “as good as it can be” it reverted to needs ID.
Unless the user took my latest comment to heart, you can replicate the behavior by switching the “good as it can be” off and on.
In what way is a continual uncorrected bug a solution… Why then waste time attempting to keep erroneous CV errors from occurring? System generated false Research Grades are, to me, an embarrassment to the iNat platform.
I obviously need to rethink whether to use iNat data for MPG if this is a on-going issue.
@dkaposi Were you aware of this bug?
what solution are you referring to? it’s best to keep discussion of the same bug under one topic.
Someone marked your comment as a “solution”. If it belongs somewhere else that will also be ignored, feel free to move it, delete it, whatever you as a moderator want to do with it.
I’ve given up…
In the example you gave you just would need to reidentify as Desmia (genus) and select the disagreeing ID option (as I did).
I agree it’s not ideal and needs to be fixed. See this related feature request I made: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/search-by-observation-taxon-or-community-taxon/3620
The team of developers at iNat is small and they can’t fix everything immediately to everyone’s satisfaction, so some issues definitely go by unaddressed for a while.
Yeah I’ve been on inat since 2011 and it’s true things don’t get changed as fast now but when I joined I was something like account 4100, there were only a few dozen active users. Now there are millions. For better and for worse, things can’t change as fast now. This issue isn’t ideal but it doesn’t really break the site, it’s just a quirk that you need to understand to use the data. It is what it is and for what I use it for it’s pretty great but not perfect. In the mean time if you are concerned about data quality one option is to create a collection project of hand picked users you know produce high quality data and work with those observations primarily
Yes, I think that is the best outcome I can hope for now…it’s too bad, though, that new obs that aren’t “hand-picked” will not be incorporated; I’ll only have historical specimens from museum collections which might give the appearance that the organism may be a stray or extirpated in a location when it actually isn’t.
I might wish, though, that staff concentrated on fixes of long-standing issues/user needs rather than rolling out yet more partially tested “features”.
I’m struggling to see the bug. After adding the single species level ID, the observation’s community ID is properly at genus level, because two species level IDs would be needed at minimum to make community ID species level.
And with “as good as it can be” checked, the observation is properly Research Grade – because there are two IDs that agree on the genus level.
As far as I understand the situation, this is expected behavior, and entirely consistent with how community ID, and the “no, as good as can be” check mark work. I’d be surprised if you’d have seen any other behavior. What am I missing?