There’s a known bug, you can see some previous discussion here and here.
1 Like
Yes, and normally the fix for the known bug is to change something about the DQA (personally I upvote “evidence of organism” because that’s pretty harmless) and this will cause the observation to “reindex”/ refresh and fix the bug. However that trick doesn’t work on these two molluscs and I’m not sure why.
2 Likes
I typed in the species name for each of these as a “new” ID instead of simply agreeing with earlier ID, then marked Yes on the DQA for a couple of categories and that seemed to push both of them into RG,
1 Like
The new weird one I found today seems to be causal because the observer marked their own image as spam (probably a mistake, as it seems like a real image to me.) I don’t think there’s any way for me to fix that since I’m not a curator.
2 Likes
Feel free to tag me on those :)
1 Like
Hi
Why does an observation, that is identified as the same species by 4 persons not get the research grade?
See link below :
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/36499027
1 Like
Someone has checked “Yes” to “Based on the evidence, can the Community Taxon still be confirmed or improved?” Checking “No, it’s as good as it can be” will make it Research Grade.
You may want to click on the (1) to see who did that and ask them why.
3 Likes
In this case, someone had checked “Yes” for the “Can the ID still be improved or refined?” box.
(moved this to the appropriate existing topic)
1 Like
I have recently joined iNaturalist and have been adding my Lepidoptera sightings made over this last summer, plus those in my collection I started 50 years ago. I thought I understood how observations get to “Research Grade” but I have one observation that perplexes me. Thus, I would like to ask that someone on iNaturalsit with more experience look at my observation (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/66346365) and let me know why it is still NeedsID when I have added dissection photograph since I originally posted he observation for the organism and now have two “experts” that have identified the organism based on that dissection photo and have suggested an ID?
I have checked various iNaturalist Help and Information pages to get a better idea of what it takes to get an observation to “Research Grade”. I found this
below.
Confirming IDs -
A minimum of two agreeing IDs are required to reach ‘Research Grade’. The intent is that two experts or knowledgeable people must review the observation
before it can become ‘Research Grade’. When confirming IDs using the ‘Agree’ button (particularly on your own observations), consider your own knowledge
of the particular taxon. An identification confirms that you can confidently identify the organism yourself compared to any possible lookalikes.
There are a few reasons that an observation may stay at ‘Needs ID’:
There may not be enough experts on that particular taxon currently using iNat
It may not be possible to ID to species from photos for this organism
Diagnostic features are not visible in the photos.
It would seem to me that the “two experts or knowledgeable people” have agreed on the identification of the organism and it should now be “Research Grade”.
3 Likes
there is a disagreement at Tribe level, Acleris is not in Archipini
1 Like
OK. I see that in my original post plus the fact that I used the Machine ID for the moth to get Archipini as the tribe. So how do we get agreement that the tribe should be Acleris?
if you have the knowledge, add a new ID and your first will be withdrawn automatically.
if you want to defer to the other IDs and not add your own, you can withdraw yours manually
2 Likes
Thanks for your help. I have now withdrawn my original classification and it has now changed to “Research Grade”.
When I entered this observation, which was my first, it was done as three separate observations (66346364, 66346365 & 66346366), so how do I consolidate multiple posting of this same moth without losing the comments, photos & id agreements?
There isn’t a way to do so without losing the IDs and comments on the duplicate observations. Here are general instructions for “merging” observations: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/how-to-turn-multiple-observations-into-a-single-observation/9838
2 Likes
OK what’s up with this observation? It was S. daulensis RG, but changing the DQA made it show up as S. brasiliensis gabbi. Yet, that ID is somehow maverick, the community taxon is still S. daulensis RG (an inactive taxon) and the observation ID is S. brasiliensis gabbi RG!
In addition to being inactive, S. daulensis is also ungrafted, and iNat does weird things with the OID/CID when there are ungrafted taxa involved, see https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/ungrafted-taxon-as-observation-taxon/14398.
For these observations the user does not appear to have opted out of the community ID, yet the observation is still labeled as “Needs ID”. Unsure what’s going on here.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/2549785
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/3106659
The observers checked the box “yes” in the Data Quality Assessment section asking if the community ID can be improved.