Why is this Observation Casual/Needs ID/Research Grade? - "Official" Topic

[dianastuder]

it needs - more than two thirds majority. Which often looks as if iNat is not keeping up, but it is working as intended.

[tiwane]

@jasonhernandez74

but the tag does not change

The term tag already has a definition on iNaturalist: https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/help#observations6 It’s best to use identify or identification if you’re referring to IDs added by users.

[rfdgrs]

I posted an observations with pic, name, date and location.
It’s in the wild (might be invasive, although questionable).
And it is marked “Casual” by iNat.
Why?

[tiwane]

What’s the URL of the observation?

[sgene]

Looks like it is this one https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/63505144 and iNaturalist marked it not wild.

[jasonhernandez74]

Another thing I notice is odd: an observation might have one very broad ID, two IDs (in agreement) to genus, and one to subspecies. The overall ID is the genus. Then I come along, and I don’t know the subspecies, but I agree with the species – and that bumps the overall ID all the way to the subspecies, even though only the one person IDed it that far. How does that fit the “2/3” criterion?

[thebeachcomber]

do you have an example?

[astra_the_dragon]

subspecies are not “counted” until the observation is already RG.
see here for more info

[jasonhernandez74]

@astra_the_dragon

subspecies are not “counted” until the observation is already RG.

I know what I saw.

I found the one I had in mind.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/5526000
Now, I see that the person who had originally IDed it as “Subfamily Coliadinae” came after I did and changed their ID; but they also IDed it only to species. But I remember that when I added my ID, it switched from “Genus Phoebis” to “Phoebis sennae ssp sennae,” even though at the time, it was one to subfamily, one to genus, one to subspecies, and then mine to species.

[sgene]

@rfdgrs

And it is marked “Casual” by iNat.
Why?

This other thread explains when the iNaturalist system marks an observation “not wild”: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/inaturalist-org-user-weirdly-improving-casual-observation/6771

[stewartwechsler]

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):

App version number, if a mobile app issue (shown under Settings or About):

Browser, if a website issue (Firefox, Chrome, etc) :

URLs (aka web addresses) of any relevant observations or pages: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/59096973#activity_identification_140899646

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.):

Step 1: 6 people give same ID, no one gives a different ID. Why does it still say “needs ID”?

Step 2:

Step 3:

[tiwane]

(moved this to the proper existing topic)

Someone has voted “Yes” to “Based on the evidence, can the Community Taxon still be confirmed or improved?” See the top post in this topic for an explanation.

[arboretum_amy]

@jasonhernandez74

Then I come along, and I don’t know the subspecies, but I agree with the species – and that bumps the overall ID all the way to the subspecies, even though only the one person IDed it that far. How does that fit the “2/3” criterion?

I was on iNat an entire year before I learned the community taxon is not the name displayed on the top of the page. It’s actually in the right hand bar. In your example you can see the community taxon is species level, even though the display taxon is to subspecies.

[rafael_carbonell]

I can’t explain why some observations convert to Research Grade easily when two people agree and others keep the “Need ID” label wiith the same conditions, as for instance:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/37830272

[cmcheatle]

It is marked as ‘yes the ID can be improved’ in the data quality section.

[arboretum_amy]

@jwidness

“The system will vote that the observation is not wild/naturalized if there are at least 10 other observations of a genus or lower in the smallest county-, state-, or country-equivalent place that contains this observation and 80% or more of those observations have been marked as not wild/naturalized.”

Does anyone know when this feature began? I find it discussed in the Google group in Oct 2018, so it was before that at least.

[jwidness]

March 2017

[thebeachcomber]

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/12137608
https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/512816

I can’t explain this one. Tried reindexing, didn’t work. Suspecting the old dates (3 years on the first disagree) have something to do with it?

[bouteloua]

see related bug report: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/observation-with-four-identical-identifications-labeled-as-needs-id/18416

[arboretum_amy]

Is there something specifically tricky about molluscs that underwent taxon swap? The redindexing trick of altering the DQA doesn’t work on these two:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/18443915
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/39641789