The identification algorithm on here never ceases to baffle me. Can someone explain what’s holding up this observation from being identified to species-level:
When I click the “About” breakdown, it shows 2 agreements for species and 1 disagreement, but none of the IDs seem to actually be disagreeing here. The species IDs are the last added, so how can anything here, aside from that Maverick ID, be counting against them. Isn’t that ID disregarded once it gets outvoted to maverick status. Why would that impact subsequent species-level IDs?
About community taxa: … For the identified taxa that have a score over 2/3 and at least 2 identifications, choose the lowest ranked taxon.
The Parazoanthus ID is the disagreement with Hydrozoanthus antumbrosus. There was 2/3 agreement on the species ID. Now that the species agreement is greater than 2/3 (it’s now 3/4 or 75%), it’s research grade at species.
so the fact that there were 4 identifications stating it was Genus B versus the original misidentification as Genus A doesn’t get factored into the species-level ID? it seems like the algorithm should disregard that initial species ID once it has been rendered “maverick”. at that point, it’s not providing any value to the identification.
I often go through research grade images for one taxon I’m familiar with that is often misidentified as another taxon I’m familiar with. Often, disagreeing with the current research-grade identification makes my identification the maverick and pushes the observation out of research-grade, but that seems to be how you would want it to work. Making sure some more eyes are on it before it’s research-grade again if there are conflicting identifications.
Maverick IDs are more likely to be correct, they are given more weight in the algorithm. It’s not at all true to say it’s not providing value to the identification.
If I understand correctly, they are not weighted more heavily, but the system is designed deliberately to allow a maverick ID to upend / disrupt the CID, due to its likelihood of being correct.
Yes, thank you, I didn’t express that very well. Now I can’t find the original inat source that spelled out how mavericks are more likely to be correct.
