In the observations recently, the perspicacious dejayM pondered on the dearth of agreements, and possible causes.
There was one that I agreed with: the need/importance of being “sure”.
So, thinking about it, I realised that the procedure could be modified so as to provide similar levels of confidence as are offered when adding an identification. Clicking “I agree” could generate a dialogue box with options along these lines:
- Full agreement (meaning that “I opine that the identification offered is correct in detail” - whether taken to species, genus, or less detailed)
- Agreed with reservations (inferring “I’m pretty sure it’s the right genus/family, not sure of fine detail”)
- Agreed with an analytical limitation (such as “I believe that identification cannot be taken this far from a photo”)
This would be accompanied by a “Notes” box, where the rationale could be entered.
Thought would be needed regarding the reporting of he number of agreements given to the identification: would only “full agreements” be counted, or would the lower-confidence ones have a fractional score (the number displayed being shown as an integer, rounded down)?
I realise that this is a “Pipe-dream”: there are more pressing coding problems that still need addressing before such refinements are considered. But it could increase user interaction, which is where iSpot could (and I think should) score over alternative resources.