I agree, and I’ve wanted this for the longest time. On the other hand, the fact that needs-ID observations are shown can make wrong IDs obvious if you’re familiar with the species. And since iNaturalist substitutes us mechanical Turks for a more restrained approach to automatic ID, the highlighting of wrong IDs may just be what is wanted by the powers that be.
Yes! Having been helping re-ID a group of butterflies today, the need for this is very acutely fresh in my mind!
I agree! I almost confirmed an ID based on a picture that looked EXACTLY like the one I was trying to ID. I don’t know how many I might have done in the past, not realizing that it takes any Quality Grade. In this case it could have had bad effects because very few sightings existed of the object.
I’d be OK with doing this for species level and below, or maybe genus and below. For some families and such, especially ones that have tons of photos which can’t be identified to a finer level, you might be missing out on a lot.
That would be a step in the right direction. Most blatant mis-ID’s by uncritical acceptance of the identotron occur on the species level anyway.
What about defaulting to RG for adding taxon photos too?
I’m going through feature requests, I’ll get to it. :-)
Anyone have a preference for what the photo browser would show if there were no RG observations to draw from?
The next photo available on iNaturalist – needs-ID or casual – with an in-your-face indicator that loudly yells “use with caution”. I would forego unvetted flickr photos entirely.
“No photo available”
That would let people know they need to go to another source to see what it looks like.
Vetted taxon photos would work as well.
Yes, “no photo available.” In my mentioned adventure, the last step was my adding photos to the ID page. That was after receiving expert confirmation on the photos. There being no picture available until that point forced us to look outside iNat and use descriptions and the rare confirmed photo, reducing error in the effort.
No, sorry about that. I’d like to nail down what should happen if there are no photos from RG observations. “No photo available” wouldn’t always be true, so I don’t think it will work. I honestly think just showing photos of “Any” data quality grade (like we do now) if there are no RG photos available would be the simplest way to get this going.
I’m in favor of schoenitz’s suggestion, rather than just saying “No photo available,” since (1) that may not be the case, and (2) there’s no guarantee that RG photos are always correct either.
There is another request somewhere to have some kind of small indicator on each taxon photo as to whether it comes from a RG or Needs ID observation. If that could also be implemented (along with a 1-click link to the observation from the photo), I would be much less concerned about including Needs ID photos in pools of taxon photos. Their status would be plain for all to see, and deal with as appropriate.
This would be better than nothing, this with a disclaimer as mentioned above would be even better :) (the disclaimer could exist at every level, not just species - even if those show needs id too by default)
This is, in fact, one reason the default is at “Any”. Would making this choice “sticky” work as a compromise?
A sticky setting would be a step in the right direction.
Well, you’ve convinced us. Should be live now, and should always default to RG. :-) Let us know if it’s working for you.
Rolling out? Taxon photos is not sticky in Cape Town
Sorry, to be clear we’re not making it sticky, we’re just defaulting to RG photos only.