Why are these two "Observation Taxa" different?

I’m a bit confused why these two records of the same taxon have different “Observation Taxa”:

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/368655149

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/369157674

In the first, the original observer selected a species-level taxon, and I added the genus-level ID. The Community Taxon reflects the genus, as does the Observation Taxon.

In the second, the original observer selected the genus-level taxon. One person added a species-level ID, but two others added genus-level IDs that match the original observer’s identification. The Community Taxon is at the genus level, but the Observation Taxon is at the species level.

What am I missing here? Why doesn’t the second example have the genus-level ID as the Observation Taxon when the original observer and the majority of identifiers have agreed?

**EDIT: I used a “hard disagree” in both cases, so that cannot be the explanation for the difference here.

first one used a hard disagree, second used soft disagree

Hard disagreement effectively says “No, it isn’t that.” or “The evidence is insufficient for species-level ID.”

Soft disagreement effectively says “It could be that, or something else in the same genus. I can’t do better than this, but perhaps someone could.”

Sometimes soft disagreement is used even when people suspect the evidence is insufficient, just so the observation remains discoverable through search.

I don’t think is the case, because I used a “hard disagree” for both of these.

You may have tried to use a ‘hard disagree’, but if so, it didn’t work, or there would be text underneath saying ‘coreyhusic disagrees this is xxx’.

I suppose that must be it. It’s odd that several of us on that ID typically would’ve used hard disagrees, but we somehow didn’t manage to. Thanks.

In the second there are 3 Genus IDs, but none of them DISagree.

Yeah, that makes sense… I guess two of us must not have hit the “hard disagree” button like we usually do. Weird!

@DianaStuder (and others), so if I initially ID an organism to genus level (because it cannot be determined further) but someone adds a new ID at the species level, do I have to REidentify in order to disagree with the species-level suggestion?

yes, unless your genus level ID was already explicitly disagree with a previous ID of that exact species

Is there any way to be firm with an initial non-species ID to avoid this (assuming the DQA is not editable because of a mismatched Community/Observation Taxon? In many of the taxa I identify on iNat, photos can only get you to genus or higher, yet many people try to add more precise IDs. In this case, I’ll have to identify every record twice?

Strictly speaking if you expect a particular erroneous species ID might happen you technically could ID as that species, then disagree with your own ID. I’d probably advise against that, as that may cause confusion (though I think I remember hearing about at least one case of someone doing this). I think with how the system works currently probably your best hope is to just leave a comment explaining why it can’t be IDed further and just hope that deters people.

If it is your own obs, you can opt out of CID, then your ID is the only one that counts.

But a copypasta comment will help other identifiers avoid going to sp.

Otherwise if 2 agree on Genus then you can click the option right at the bottom – can the Community Taxon be improved? – No, it’s as good as it can be

I think there is a feature request to mark the relevant taxon as – cannot go to sp without …

It’s possible that you just clicked ‘Agree’ on the first ID? If so, I think that doesn’t ask whether you’re disagreeing or not - but I could be wrong.

Yep, but this doesn’t work until the Community Taxon and Observation Taxon match, even if multiple folks put the genus level ID down. That was sort of the impetus for my whole questioning, actually.

Yeah, that would be handy!

I did trawl thru a year of feature requests. Didn’t find it again.