changing an observation should influence research grade

[wouter teunissen]

What happens if an observer adds extra photos to an observations that was already reviewed?

To give an extreme example (just to show the problem):
Observer adds an observation of a Peregrine falcon (a bird) in London
I give a positive ID,
someone else gives a positive ID and the observation turns to Research grade.
Some more people agree on the identification, so the validity of the observation grows!
Then the observer has a good night of drinking with some friends and he thinks it's a good joke to change some of his observations. So he chenges the picture of the peregrine into an African elephant..

What happens then?
I think the observation remains research grade!
I think the reviewers are not notified
And now the name of the reviewers is also involved in wrong identification, while in fact they were right...

 

[Charlie Hohn]

now you've done it. Next time I get drunk i'm turning all my blurry white pine observations to pictures of weasels and minks.

[Mirko Schoenitz]

Wouter, let me know whenever you're in the area so that we can get drunk together.

Mirko

[wouter teunissen]

;-) Whahaha

Good idea! Let me know where that is, so I could join! :-)

it also works the other way around, if you ever pop-up in the Netherlands... more than welcome!
But do you mind if I already start? ;-)



Op dinsdag 13 juni 2017 19:49:09 UTC+2 schreef Mirko Schoenitz:

[wouter teunissen]

Although I think this beer is more suited, for this occasion:
http://www.belbev.asia/products/delirium_tremens.php

Would be a nice social iNaturalist event: the Elephant drinks!
A recurring event: every year on the second Tuesday of June!

Op dinsdag 13 juni 2017 21:16:54 UTC+2 schreef wouter teunissen:

[Alex Shepard]

I vote for Dutch beer! My wife and I honeymooned in Amsterdam the month before I joined the iNaturalist team.

[g_go...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:24:59 PM UTC-5, wouter teunissen wrote:

Although I think this beer is more suited, for this occasion:
http://www.belbev.asia/products/delirium_tremens.php

Would be a nice social iNaturalist event: the Elephant drinks!
A recurring event: every year on the second Tuesday of June!

Hm.....

Saccharomyces socials.....

Would photos of bottle labels be sufficient to warrant research grade on observations of various strains?  Or would one need to supply photomicrographs of the actual yeasty beasties?

Wolfgang

who, in either case, anticipates problems with focus

[wouter teunissen]

Hey Alex,

Cool pictures!
Brouwerij 't IJ is a fine brewery with good beer! Strangely enough I have never been at that place... friends have and they tell me you never leave without being at least a little tipsy... So I presume you had a good stay.. ;-)

Beers from 't IJ from Amsterdam, it is then!!

Bye,
Wouter



Op dinsdag 13 juni 2017 22:46:11 UTC+2 schreef Alex Shepard:

[wouter teunissen]

Wolfgang, I think this will be a problem from the moment you start spilling...
Before that, the yeast is still captive and therefore can't get research grade. But once spilled... well would that be status introduced?
Or do we think, spilling beer is a natural way of disperse for yeasts?
;-)

Op woensdag 14 juni 2017 12:03:22 UTC+2 schreef g_go...@yahoo.com:

[James Bailey]

This shouldn't be an issue because the ID will still remain. For instance, the observation will be vetted as peregrine falcon and remain that, indicating the vetting process having happened.

[wouter teunissen]

But that is exactly my problem!
You can't tell anymore who is right or wrong!!!
You then get a pergrine falcon observation with pictures of an elephant (at best, more likely of big hairy butts.... ;-) )

My issue was of course extreme, but it does happen that people add other pictures later, or change pictures because they think the other one is better. There is however a possibilty that these new pictures are of a different species. Or that the tags and fields are no longer correct, since they changed the picture of a male into a female.
This also happens if someone adds a field or a tag after you have already reviewed an observation.
Really stupid things can then happen. Then you suddenly agree on captivity while in fact it might have been a wild animal... things like that.
I think it should be clear on what exactly you did review!

If this will not get clear, then I don't know if I want to review any longer, since what's the point of doning that if you don't know what could happen with a sighting?


Op woensdag 14 juni 2017 18:38:56 UTC+2 schreef James Bailey:

[Charlie Hohn]

an "uploaded time" field when you click on a photo would solve this problem as you could easily see if a photo was added after an ID.

[wouter teunissen]

Something like that would be fine!
(but nessecary!)

Op donderdag 15 juni 2017 13:34:01 UTC+2 schreef Charlie Hohn:

[Rob Curtis]

I definitely agree. It has happened to me several times that someone has switched photographs after I had made an ID. That is frustrating, so I typically call them out in the text if/when I notice. However, as you have mentioned, the IDers are never notified when photos are added or removed - I have always thought somehing was wrong with that.