On this one (on the old site) I followed a standard approach I used of putting my guess at species level ID (first) and then the safer (generally higher taxonomic grouping) ID. On Old iSpot this was working with this entry having a LikelyID of ‘Moths (Lepidoptera)’ .
Possibly one of two things have happened here (or both). It could be that new iSpot takes the first ID a person suggests as their suggestion and privileges that for LikelyID in the absence of agreements. Alternatively it looks like the second ID is being treated as being in the catch all ‘other organisms’ category rather than in invertebrates where it should be. Since it is not possible to have ID on ‘other organisms’ that means that ID is losing the fight for LikelyID.
If the second it is not clear what the bug is. It could be that the generic ‘Moths (Lepidoptera)’ is wrongly specified in the dictionary (as other organisms) or it could be some fault where a second ID by the same person is being categorised as other organism.
On old iSpot it was not possible to have reputations from different groups applied in one LikelyID calculation - essentially it used you reputation in whatever group the poster had assigned their entry to (Invertebrates in this case) so even if on old iSpot ‘Moths (Lepidoptera)’ was wrongly classified in the dictionary it would have worked in this entry.
 Note at the time of writing the only IDs were my two neither of which had attracted agreements. Once people start agreeing it might well change.
 by design although I’ve never been 100% convinced that is the right design choice
Yes, a bug. I have seen it recently and assumed just another example of inadequate and untested coding. It happens quite a bit with Other Organisms specially - I am majoring in Other O’s, trying to sort them BUT am waiting until I can get responses from individual authors (there is NO point is adding comments nowadays, even to the ‘old hands’)
Anyway, as you say, an agreement will probably change it. I was going to try but some of the impact of your stuff here might get lost. I would urge people to leave such things when reasonable but note them for future reference. MY Favourites is 30 posts too long and I am quite tired of all this.
This is a new bug. This was not the case last week.
Last week the bug was that the higher classification was not assigned to any group. Now it is assigned to “Other organisms”.
But if I remember correctly (with this new bug I cannot check), it was only the really higher classification: family and class were working, it was only order and above that were not working correctly: That Arthropoda and Insecta gave problems, but Lepidoptera worked fine.
It seems that instead of fixing the problem, the fix is now wrong (to the group that used to be “unknown” but is now “Viruses, Bacteria, Worms and Amoeboids”, instead of the group specified in the dictionary) and has been made generic (applies to everything except the lowermost levels of the taxonomy).
it was your “Add a revised ID” that resulted in the re-evaluation of the three IDs under the new system. (why on earth did you add a duplicate ID?: in the s Afr community you would have been severely chastized for doing this: in fact, we regard it as a bug on iSPot that a duplicate ID CAN be posted - that is what the “I Agree” button is for.).
What is insane is that the dictionary has coded alongside each name the group and the rank and the status of the name.
There is no good reason why this is not an elementary fix.
Clearly part of the bug is that the group is not being correctly obtained from the dictionary.
I have requested that the same lookup be done so that the entries in the dictionary and the browser give the correct rank and not just the words “group” and “subgroup”. This was the case on the old iSpot dictionary (but it was never done on the browser, despite requests), so it can be done.
…right now I cannot find that particular post (I will) but I understand your concerns. I will only have added an ‘identical’ ID to try to change the Group, usually FROM Other Organisms. Almost certainly I will have explained myself in a comment in that post.
Only yesterday did I do the same thing to a UK Post - here https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/view/observation/729268/what-made-this-hole But, as we know, the Bug is alive and well.
See I have explained myself in the ID panel because I have stopped adding comments as NO-ONE is responding , not even in ZA
We believe as most probably many others, that writing to one’s self borders on lunacy. So yes comments don’t happen, but hey, we have 6 - 8 weeks and counting before we get back to some semblance of normality.
Please do not stop adding comments. Just accept that comments will take a few weeks to get a reply to.
But if you see something that needs a comment: then comment immediately - you will not remember in 8 weeks time, and the volume will be overbearing.
I promise I will do everything in my power to create links to all comments, IDs and Agreements when I get the data dump.
So if you comment now, expect a reply in two weeks time, and expect to be able to reply to all comments made on your observations at the same time.
Do not fix the association!!! It might not be broken.
HANG TEN in there. It may simply be that the programmers forgot to display the link for interactions that were coded as “0” (0 = associated with).
So please do not fix it until we know that it is broken!!
Our problem in South Africa for lichens is that the experts are almost all in Europe. It is a catch 22 situation. We need enough pictures to get the experts interested. And we need enough locals to attract the experts. The experts are largely unaware of our site, and if they are they are faced with pretty pictures but no key information (e.g. all the chemical tests). Similarly the locals dont know what is required, and really - 90% of our lichen observations are yours and mine : 2 users.
I recon we are at the stage where the experts should be able to benefit from iSpot. What is required is someone to attract them here and get them excited about helping. You are not wasting your time. But it is time to reallocate your time to getting European lichenologists interested in helping us out.
And then we need to get more locals involved.
But first steps first. You have laid the groundwork. You have done a magnificent job. Now it is time to build upon the foundation and get the expertise involved.
And from what I have seen, relative to European lichens, South Africa IS another planet.
Sadly, and I may be mistaken, it appears to me that people in the South African Community are not really interested. We had some really good feedback in the earlier days from some amazing experts. I’m not sure why they stopped giving input (again just surmising) but maybe their input was not acknowledged and they lost interest.
Glad you saw Nicky’s pictures - it seems a pity that there is so little support for her effort.
I’d really like to see if we could find someone to take a look at this particular observation. https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/southern-africa/view/observation/689178/lecanoromycetes-sp
The site is so amazing, the mountain is covered with these lichens
I have a feeling we need to cross the Blood-Brain Barrier in iSpot and do FAR MORE integration and exchange with other Communities. Have you looked at Honk Kong recently? I have found over the last year or so, my exchanges with the Sefricans nothing but exciting, supportive and informative.
On that note I suggest you might post ZA lichens occasionally in the UK community - not too many and not too frequently. You’ll need to wait for CHANGES (the next Full Eclipse!)
The pic above is 'specially lovely @Nicky (won’t work of course)
Not sure who THEY are - Definitely Froden understood the system. I’m not sure when he stopped commenting.
How many of my “posssible” ID’s on your finds have been acknowledged?
When someone adds an ID which I’m not sure of I might post something like this. “Thanks, but I’m not able to agree” or “don’t know enough to agree”.
Then at least the contributor knows that their contribution has been read.
Thanks to Riaan for these - he is personally involved. Note that he is our national beetle expert (gold badge in invertebrates 1000 votes) and he is checking the IDs of the Magda who is knowleageable and who should have based on the old iSpot 500 votes (for a Silver Badge) for an ID or agreement.
So Riaan pulls a cunning manoeuvre, (totally illegitimate, and unacceptable, but in the interests of testing a hypothesis - well science and exploration comes first: aways!!! That is why we love iSpot!) and adds a second identical ID (ignoring like all good scientists the common name) …
And Viola: Riaan trumps. the same number of votes. the same relationship between Riaan and the Magda: but a different outcome.
Be worried: be very worried.
(Of course you know me. Have to have the last say. Could not let the travesty go unpunished. So dont expect to see this ID trumping - that is why Riaan took the screen grabs: many thanks! And sorry for spoiling the revised common name: you can add it to the dictionary seen that I have undone it here).
Lastly: to prove that this is not an isolated incident: here a 4 badge trumps an expert: