research grade error? or am i just misunderstanding the algorithm?

[Charlie Hohn]

first user identified as Quercus agrifolia.

Second user identified just to genus quercus.

I checked it as not needing further ID because it may be agrifolia but it's not possible to tell for sure.

It is showing research grade for Quercus agrifolia up top. Community ID still says quercus but this makes it look to most users like RG for agrifolia. Also i can't tell if it is showing up on the Q agrifolia map or not since there are so many observatons in that area.

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/479367

[bouteloua]

Another confusion of "Observation ID" (OID) vs "Community ID" (CID)

previously https://groups.google.com/d/msg/inaturalist/lTD_mlGPg3U/nTf6vFFJBgAJ

It shows up in research grade observations of Quercus agrifolia and will export as if it is research grade at species level. CID still isn't included in exports, only OID. In the export, the fields scientific_name, common_name, iconic_taxon_name, and taxon_id are all referring to the OID (attached). I doubt this is intentional and hopefully it can be fixed by allowing users to export both OID and CID as well as explicitly specifying that the quality_grade field refers to the CID. It would be great to have some sort of data dictionary for these potentially confusing field names.The little tooltips on hover on the export screen are often insufficient to describe what the fields actually are (attached).

(I've been having problems with the maps not loading all pinpoints lately or loading them very slowly, so I'm not sure if it's not showing up on the map in error or if it's intentionally not displayed. See screenshot attached; that one pinpoint is a different observation.

You can still disagree with the ID of Q. agrifolia to push it to Quercus sp. for the OID. What you are disagreeing with when you hit the orange button is that there is not enough evidence to ID as such. You're not necessarily disagreeing it's that species.

cassi

[Scott Loarie]

Thanks for pointing out those issues of OID vs CID display cassi. This situation is much complicated by the 'Based on the evidence, can the Community ID still be confirmed or improved?' vote. Would be great to find a way to simplify this

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to inaturalist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

--------------------------------------------------
Scott R. Loarie, Ph.D.
Co-director, iNaturalist.org
California Academy of Sciences
55 Music Concourse Dr
San Francisco, CA 94118
--------------------------------------------------

[Charlie Hohn]

Hi! Yeah, I know i've weighed in before on not wanting to vote against an ID if I don't know if it is right or not. They may very well be coast live oak, I just can't tell, so i don't want to bump it to genus. However, it definitely shouldn't show up with the RG icon on Coast Live Oak if it's even less certain than a casual observation. Maybe I should just uncheck the box in case someone else wants to weigh in, for now. In the long term it sounds like you are looking at simplifying it anyhow.

============================
Charlie Hohn
Montpelier, Vermont