6. Identification Disagreements Are Now Explicit


Identification Disagreements Are Now Explicit
We've made a slight change to how we handle conservative identification disagreements. Previously, if an observation was of a dog and you identified it as a mammal, iNat would assume that your ID was a disagreement, i.e. that you both thought the observation was a mammal and was not a dog. Personally, I've always thought this was a simple way to force disagreements to be constructive, but it's also caused a lot of confusion of the years. Now, if you add an ID of a taxon that contains the observation's community taxon, iNat will force you to choose whether you mean to disagree or not. It makes the identification process slightly more cumbersome, but hopefully less confusing, especially for new users.

Bonus: this also lets you add constructive identifications in situations where they would have previously been considered disagreements, e.g.

ID 1: Mammal (CID is Mammalia)
ID 2: Vulpes vulpes ssp. arabica (CID is Mammalia)
ID 3: Vulpes vulpes (CID is Vulpes vulpes)
ID 4: Vulpes vulpes ssp. arabica (CID is Vulpes vulpes ssp. arabica)

Before, that species-level ID would count as a disagreement with the subspecies ID before it, but now it can just be a "best guess" and the additional subspecies ID can shift the CID to subspecies.

Anyway, this is mostly just going to affect the hardcore identifiers out there. Hopefully it won't be too much of a problem for you folks. The apps do not yet support this behavior so IDs from there will continue to work like IDs before, i.e. IDs of taxa that contain the community taxon will count as implicit disagreements.

The thing is that Q. rotundifolia is a synonym for Q. ilex sbsp. rotundifolia, and is used somtimes one and sometimes another depending on the internet page or the person, so is not totally incorrect to call this plant Q. ilex, but in this page they divided it into two species, Q. ilex (other people calls it Q. ilex sbsp. ilex) and Q. rotundifolia (other people calls it Q. ilex sbsp. ballota or Q. ilex sbsp. rotundifolia)


  1. Identification Disagreements Are Now Explicit

Publicado por ahospers ahospers, 30 de agosto de 2020



About this issue is more up2date information

Publicado por optilete hace 10 meses (Marca)

= = = Nov2020

Common ancestor for the top 3 raw results



m looking for a way of finding observations without coordinates. Many of these have Location Notes, so it is basically lacking Longitude or Latitude that I am looking for.
I am not interested in those with Latitude = 0 or Longitude = 0 (see https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/null (which is very inappropriately named, as I am looking for NULLS but this project identifies zeros instead - nulls have no data (value unassigned, or empty, or missing), but 0 is a specific datum - zero - like any other value - and not a “null”)).
At present for this user, filtering on verifiable=false gives me more or less what I want, but conflates these with any Data Quality criteria, not just missing coordinates.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=any&subview=grid&user_id=ahospers&verifiable=false 1

I added a very basic search to atlases in response to Jane’s feature request https://www.inaturalist.org/atlases 6. So now if you wanted to see all ‘marked’, ‘active’ atlases of taxa in the LIliaceae you’d do https://www.inaturalist.org/atlases?utf8=✓&filters[taxon_name]=Lilies&filters[taxon_id]=47328&filters[is_active]=True&filters[is_marked]=True

The out-of-range is vestigal, we don’t display it anywhere anymore (except the old filter menu thats still on https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/loarie 1). It worked directly on the taxon-range, rather than using atlases

Publicado por ahospers hace 7 meses (Marca)

Agregar un comentario

Acceder o Crear una cuenta para agregar comentarios.