While going through this identify URL, I came across an observation (https://inaturalist.ca/observations/46656357) that is marked as Casual, yet everything is fine in the Data Quality Assessment except for the
This observation was identified as a dicot, then got identified as a horse-radish. The observer did not opt out of the community ID, but the community taxon is stuck at “Dicots”?
The Community Taxon says
The taxon showed at the top of the page is
I’m a little bit confused here…
The community taxon/ID is only dicots (class Magnoliopsida), so since that taxon rank is pretty coarse, it goes casual.
Observations will revert to “casual” if the above conditions aren’t met or the community agrees […]
- the observation no longer needs an ID and the community ID is at family or above
In this case, the community ID (right sidebar) and the observation ID (the ID displayed at the top of the page) are not the same thing. This is not obvious and a common source of confusion.
The community ID is the lowest rank at which at least 2/3 of the IDers agree on (the horseradish ID counts as agreeing with the broader dicots). A second horseradish ID would take the community ID to species.
By contrast, the ID displayed at the top of the page is the lowest ID for which there are no disagreements (more or less).
I don’t fully understand the motivation of whomever clicked the “ID cannot be improved” button, since this is usually used when a species ID is not possible.
Or when an observation has multiple agreeing identifications to species and is only at “Needs ID” because someone previously marked it as “can still be improved.” That is a much more frequent reason when I am doing IDs.
But not in a scenario where the observation only has two IDs and there is no “still be improved” vote that needs to be countered.
What would stop this post from getting a research grade?
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/208829401
more than 2 members confirmed it.
Thank you very much.
We can see this observation isnt in the species rank, but rather on the genus part, but it has the research grade level, why is it?
Thank you, i did not know that
I just had something like this happen to one of my observations. Well, I say “just,” but it actually happened awhile ago and I only just noticed it now. I ID’d it as superfamily, then someone ID’d it to subgenus within the same superfamily, then they ticked the “based on evidence” flag. I knew all that happened when it happened, but I didn’t notice it made the observation casual until I was double checking my casual grade observations.
I ticked the “yes” box, which put it back on “needs ID,” and I also know to do that in the future for now, but I think it’s actually a problem that needs fixed and not something people just need to be aware of. Imo, if the box is ticked “no,” then it should only take affect when two people agree on the finest taxon. If it takes two IDs to make an observation research grade, then why does one ID get to decide it’s casual grade, not even because it disagree with someone else, but because the IDer genuinely doesn’t know a finer ID?
It kind of frustrates me how many casual grade IDs are probably sitting there with everything they need to be research grade just because someone was looking at the “Observation ID” instead of the “Community ID,” and now they’re so far behind all the potted flowers and missing locations that no one will ever notice. I also think it’s unrealistic to make everyone or even a significant portion of everyone learn how to use it for this specific flag; I really do think the actual system itself needs changed, even if in a different way than I suggested
I believe the iNat programmers should make a search term for every single line of the DQA. Terms do exist for some lines but not others. For example here it would be useful if you could search within Casual for observations that have this box checked.
Just an FYI that recently I found that every one of my cat Observations, previously Research Grade, had been rendered Casual using the DQI by a user seemingly intent on doing so, why I could not say.
These Observations were identified when uploaded as Wild because I ticked them as Wild within the DQI myself. For most I also included the word “callejero” in the little additional information box.
I would like to think this is just one person moving quickly and perhaps not considering photo evidence, however when this was insufficient to make them Casual one and/or two things occurred:
Again, this occurred on every single one of my previous Research Grade Observations of cats, all of which of mine show street/feral cats/“callejeros”.
My suggestion is that each Observer check their own Observations of cats to ensure that the status is accurately reflected for each.
I think that there can be legitimate disagreements over whether an organism is wild or not. I would suggest observers make comments mentioning users who voted against the observer where the observer has designated them as wild. Observers can explain why they consider the observations to be wild and ask the voters to reconsider their votes.
If there are cases where users are abusing DQA votes without cause to make observations casual, these should be flagged. Abusing DQA votes can lead to suspension, though some users don’t know this.
How would the DQA misuse be flagged? Is it possible to flag a DQA vote?
I don’t believe so. A workaround I’ve seen people use is to flag an observation with a note about the DQA, but observations with active flags are rendered as casual, so if you must flag a DQA vote(s) by a user, flag with care.
My suggestion is for Observers to review their own cat Observations for accuracy. Nothing more, nothing less.
I actually did @ the individual accounts on a different Observation where I had made an identification and the DQI had been acted upon similarly. There was no response whatsoever from either.
I was surprised and so went to look at my own Observations and was stunned and saddened to find they were similarly acted upon, without exception.
I flagged my own Observations, all of them to show the pattern, and also filed a Service Ticket.
Beyond the photo evidence, my use of the notes field, and my ticking of the Wild in the DQA, there is little more I can do to convince someone of the wildness of a particular starving feline shown on top of a wall in heavy foliage with bite marks on his neck. I should actually not have to provide anything more than that.
The decision to mark every cat observation “not wild”, no exception, regardless, and then the secondary decision to utilize additional aspects of the DQI such as “no evidence of organism” or “location inaccurate” to make sure the Observations went Casual pretty much precludes any pretext of “legitimate argument”.
Please know I at first assumed good intent.
I monitor casuals in my region and find casuals that could be easily fixed and DQAs that could be in error frequently. Most casuals are categorized that way for an appropriate reason. But we need notifications to observers when an observation is made casual through DQA. Even when appropriately marked, most people do not leave comments when DQAing - even for easily correctable issues.
In that case, how are false DQA votes best brought to curator/staff attention?
