The DQA “Based on the evidence, can the Community Taxon still be confirmed or improved?” / “No, it’s as good as it can be” is able to push an observation to limbo when it should not. This DQA should be disabled in some cases. An observation of a Viola (Plantae) got these IDs and is now “Casual”, id…

Actually I think they’re both problems. The DQA should never have been clicked on something that was completely identifiable (I gather), and the reason for it having such a high-level ID is irrelevant. My first reaction to the initial suggestion was ‘but what about all those utterly unidentifiable p…

In this Viola example - I would like iNat to SHOW us the word Lepidoptera. It is not useful to display an unfamiliar (or it would not have been clicked) Genus as an unattached orphan. iNat does not present this as flower or butterfly, it is just - oh, hello Viola!

[image] rupertclayton: Nothing is improved by voting for or against DQA for observations of this sort with conflicting low-level IDs It seems to me that the underlying issue in the case at hand is not misuse of the DQA, but IDer error – two people not realizing that the ID they entered was no…

[image] spiphany: I suppose one might argue that two assessments of “a species ID is not possible” would be desirable before making an observation RG at a higher level. I think if this were to happen, people would need to be encouraged to use that option more often - because there are plenty …

Perhaps the ‘no it’s as good as it can be’ box should be disabled when the community ID is broader than all of the given IDs. That would be simple. It wouldn’t remove all possible examples of this type (someone might have filtered it to a broad ID early on in the process, for example), but it woul…

I wasn’t proposing that the button be changed to require 2 votes, just reflecting on the asymmetry inherent to the way it works. (If I disagree with a species ID by pushing it back to genus, the community ID – consisting of my ID plus the ID I disagreed with – will be at genus, but it doesn’t repre…

[image] matthewvosper: Perhaps the ‘no it’s as good as it can be’ box should be disabled when the community ID is broader than all of the given IDs. This seems a good suggestion, and I’m struggling to think of a situation where this would cause problems.

I see this DQA used far too often by people who have an opinion or assumption something cannot be identified, have a specific stance on the taxonomic placement, or personally are not willing to commit in a situation others might. I dislike this use as it will bump it to casual and so no one else wil…

[image] deboas: [image] matthewvosper: Perhaps the ‘no it’s as good as it can be’ box should be disabled when the community ID is broader than all of the given IDs. This seems a good suggestion, and I’m struggling to think of a situation where this would cause problems. Yes! Let me giv…

[image] matthewvosper: Perhaps the ‘no it’s as good as it can be’ box should be disabled when the community ID is broader than all of the given IDs. Yes, very good suggestion! There are many such cases. And it should be disabled when there are no IDs at all. There are more than 1,200 such …

Use of “It’s as good as it can be” in the DQA

General

Topic		Replies	Views
Users are (understandably) saying they "disagree" General	60	1448	July 23, 2026
Use of "It's as good as it can be" in the DQA General	75	3048	June 6, 2023
DQA votes disappearing General	25	547	January 22, 2026
Good as can be - is it? General confusing	60	1697	April 8, 2025
Eliminate the observation-level "Can the Community Taxon be Improved?" DQA item in favor of an ID-level "Cannot be Improved" flag Feature Requests	13	1152	July 23, 2026

Use of “It’s as good as it can be” in the DQA

Related topics