edit: display bug fixed itself
Why is this observation (not mine) Casual instead of Needs ID? Am I missing something obvious, or should I make a bug report?
I see it now too. Must have been a bug.
The exact percentage is 80%, starting at 10 observations. I see this mentioned a lot without the exact percentage and it irks me unreasonably!
6 posts were split to a new topic: Discussion about a userâs photo dates
A post was split to a new topic: Discussion about a userâs photo dates
Both links (48678 & 48679) for âuserâs photo datesâ receive the following message:
Oops! That page doesnât exist or is private.
Flagged content was being discussed, so several messages are no longer public.
This observation was stuck at a high level due to an ancestor disagreement; since the observer had withdrawn their original ID, I was able to get it to reindex in accordance with the new way of handling ancestor disagreements.
However, I am confused about why it is not already RG when it has two non-conflicting species IDs and the disagreement was not a disagreement with any current ID (i.e., it should no longer be considered a disagreement). Is this intended behavior or is there something weird going on?
(I can add another ID if needed, but I wanted to wait in case the observation is relevant for troubleshooting)
That second ID which disagreed with Borago officinalis disagreed all the way back to Dicots, which counts as a disagreement with all levels of taxonomy back to Dicots. That means that ID counts not just as a disagreement with the species B. officinalis, but also as a disagreement with the order Borages, the Borage Family, the Subfamily Boraginoideae, the Tribe Boragineae, the Subtribe Boragininae, and the genus Borages. So while that ID did not explicitly disagree with the new suggested species Anchusa arvensis, it did implicitly disagree with the Order-Subtribe which contain Anchusa arvensis. The algorithm considers this an âancestor disagreementâ, i.e. if you disagree with the order that contains a species, youâve implicitly disagreed with all species in that order as well. Therefore, the disagreeing vote taking the observation back to âDicotsâ is still counting as a vote against this new suggestion of a different Boraginine species. This is how Iâm interpreting the âWhatâs This?â window for the observation anyway.
I know how ancestor disagreement works. The observation was previously at class for this reason.
However, a recent change was made to the way ancestor disagreements are calculated, so that it is not treated as a disagreement with other IDs in the same family once the specific ID that was being disagreed with has been withdrawn.
That is why the ID is now being displayed at species level once I clicked and unclicked some DQA to get iNat to reindex it.
But if the disagreement is no longer a disagreement, it should only take 2 IDs to get to research grade.
1 Like
You may need to force reindexing. Which I did. Add an ID to get it to RG. Then you can withdraw (or delete) and the RG holds steady.
1 Like
I had already forced reindexing by clicking and unclicking DQA. This changed the community ID but did not make it RG. Why would adding and deleting an ID affect the RG status while DQA only updates the community ID?
For that why, you must ask iNat staff.
I do what I discovered FORCED the reindex, and gave me the result I wanted. DQA reindex doesnât affect the ID reindex ? - in your comment.
@loarieâs comment
1 Like
Please fill out the following sections to the best of your ability, it will help us investigate bugs if we have this information at the outset. Screenshots are especially helpful, so please provide those if you can.
Platform (Android, iOS, Website): Website
Browser, if a website issue (Firefox, Chrome, etc) : Safari
URLs (aka web addresses) of any relevant observations or pages: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/205867643
Screenshots of what you are seeing (instructions for taking a screenshot on computers and mobile devices: https://www.take-a-screenshot.org/):
Description of problem (please provide a set of steps we can use to replicate the issue, and make as many as you need.): The observation is stuck at âneeds IDâ even after:
Step 1: refreshing the page,
Step 2: me adding an observation and
Step 3: refreshing the page again
Iâm sorry if there is any obvious thing that would make this a âNeeds IDâ observation that Iâm missing, but I cannot see anything.
It had the âYesâ checked on âCan the ID be improvedâ. Several folks have now voted âNoâ and it is RG.
1 Like
Yes. That fixed the issue. I never even looked at that because it never was relevant to me before. :D
1 Like
Iâm curious why this one is casual: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/129226593#identification-596eb74c-a3c6-483a-95df-488a5a3c00ce
The user has opted out of community ID and it is unknown. It has 2 IDs, but I donât see any DQA votes. I tried forced reindexing. Am I overlooking something?
I donât have a problem with this, Iâm just curious if I missed a rule update (or have been overlooking this for a while).
Thanks!
1 Like
Since the observer hasnât added an ID, opting out or community ID means itâs stuck at no ID (unknown). Once their ID, or lack thereof, disagrees with the community, it becomes casual so that it doesnât stay in the (default) list of obs waiting for identification/confirmation.
Observations will revert to âcasualâ if âŚ
⌠the observer has opted out of the community ID and the community ID taxon is not an ancestor or descendant of the taxon associated with the observerâs ID
3 Likes
Thanks!
2 Likes