"Disagreements" filter added to the Identify Page
Hello, identifiers (and aspiring identifiers) of iNat! Thank you for all of the essential and difficult work you do on iNaturalist.
As a way to make your valuable identification time more efficient, we’ve added a small but helpful Disagreements filter to the Identify page, which you can access by clicking on the Filters box:
When you check that Disagreements box, the Identify page will show you only observations where at least one active identification is an explicit disagreement, such as:
Why add this filter?
This will help you find observations where more informed community input is most beneficial, at any taxonomic level.
In the example above, the observation now has a Community Taxon of Class Arachnida due to the two disagreeing identifications, and would benefit by more people seeing the observation and weighing in with an informed opinion. If two more people agreed to the Harvestmen (Opiliones) identification there, for example, the observation’s Community Taxon and Observation Taxon would change to Harvestmen (Opiliones) and be more easily findable by someone who specializes in that taxon. It’s like a relay race, we’re doing everything we can to pass the baton to the next person.
In testing it out over the past week, I’ve found that for me it’s most useful when combined with other filters that restrict results by location and taxonomy. For example, restricting results to California shows me observations where I have enough knowledge to weigh in with an informed identification or comment. I’ve also found it useful when going through my own observations to see where I need to update or withdraw my identification.
Technical Details
If you’re familiar with editing search URLs, this filter adds the param disagreements=true to the URL. Other possible values are false and any (which is the default).
Added clarification on July 2nd, 2025: the disagreeing ID must be active and must be disagreeing with another active ID.
We hope this new filter will help you when you’re looking for observations to identify! Let us know how you’re using it or if you have any feedback. Thanks again for making iNat what it is!
Comments
Can we get a filter for observations that have comments?
Will definitely be using this!
This is most useful.
So out of 158,909 Proteaceae in Africa observations, where I have reviewed 150,615 observations, there are 3,553 disagreements, of which I have reviewed 3,489. With 11 unreviewed at the community ID level of species or finer.
This is going to be invaluable. Many thanks.
Thank you! I will most certainly be using this to help wrangle the more difficult cases (and detect common mistakes, misclicks).
I'm not sure why but I do not see this option. Out of curiosity, I tried just adding "&disagreements=true" to the URL to see what the results would be and it didn't reduce the number of observations shown at all. So, maybe there are still some bugs to work out?
"Disagreements" appears to be available only via the "Identify" pages
(e.g., https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?taxon_id=47561&disagreements=true)
but not available via the Explore/Observations pages
(e.g., https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?subview=map&taxon_id=47561)
Great addition, but please also add the Disagreements filter to the Explore/Observations pages!
Thanks
Very handy! Agreed with @tmessick about having it on Explore/Observations; I also use that myself.
Aha! Yes, please add to the Explore/Observations page as I do most of my IDing from there.
I agree with @tmessick that it would be great to add this also to the explore tab, this is usually the place I go to in order to find / ID certain taxa
ого
One of the greatest additions to Inat, going to make identifying so much better. Thanks Inat staff for continuing to improve this awesome community!
Lit! I just started using this filter. Didn't realize it was new.
Is there a way to view observations that are stuck at a rank above species due to disagreements where you can search for a specific species included in the disagreeing ID's? Obviously, as it stands the only way to come across that record after there is disagreement is to find it under the higher taxon level. I would love to be able to quickly find records that include someone ID'ing it as a specific species so that I may agree or disagree. From what I can tell so far, this feature just gives you everything that has disagreements under a higher taxon and I would have to do further sorting myself. In any case, this is still a great feature! Thanks.
Colin: try a combination of
e,g, IDs exist to genus Protea (=129714) but community ID ranks higher than family (=epifamily):
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?quality_grade=any&ident_taxon_id=129714&lrank=epifamily
The ident_taxon_id appears to include children taxa, which is handy
This is useful against the 60% residue from CNC. I am down to last 30 obs for Africa.
78K for the Rest of the World
UPDATE and UP to 89.7K in January 2026
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?verifiable=any&ttl=900&v=1745531104000&disagreements=true&project_id=227779&place_id=any
Including 5K for the original 'winner'
UPDATE down to 2.7K in January 2026
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?verifiable=any&ttl=900&v=1745531104000&disagreements=true&project_id=227779&place_id=6784
to pair with their Geomodel Anomalies
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?quality_grade=needs_id%2Cresearch&order_by=geo_score&order=asc&place_id=6784&expected_nearby=false&with_private_location=false&acc_below_or_unknown=50000&d1=2025-04-25&d2=2025-04-28
Several different systems - because we all have different ways of using iNat.
What is essential to my workflow (and unavailable to me yet) may be utterly useless to you.
'Not my problem so it doesn't matter' is not true.
Disagreements filter is useful to a cohort of us identifiers. The ones who tackle the the behemoth of Needs ID. Or who curate their taxon on iNat. So much easier to start with carving out a manageable slice.
Which one is not maintained ?
Much appreciated! This seemingly small addition, I predict, will have an outsized impact on getting more observations to Research Grade. Well done!
Add it to the Explore page please!
@tiwane Can all filters from the Identify page be included on the Explore page and vice-versa? It would be nice if it was consistent as people use both to identify and many of us use the Explore page a lot more than the Identify page. There doesn't seem to be any good reason for them not to be consistent. I'm often very frustrated with the lack of an annotation filter in the Explore page as well. Thanks!
I never use Explore. Identify has lots of keyboard shortcuts, which makes that more efficient and rewarding.
One really should be doing identifications with the Identify Tool. It makes sense to have filters there to deal with identification and misidentification issues, and curation (e.g. for annotation and quality assessment).
The Exploration Tool is for summarizing and inspecting data and distributions. It is not meant for identification (if you find you need to, the bottom bar of the filter box has an "Identify" option to switch your current selection to the ID tool at one click).
It does not make sense to have filter options on the Exploration Tool that you dont need there. I support keeping the filters separate for the simple reason of assisting users in applying the correct and most efficient tools to the job at hand.
(it seems that I have applied a disagreements filter to this blog?)
I don't like the smaller size of thumbnails on the Identify tab (yes, even on the larger setting), I find the the on-hover animations distracting, I actively dislike and don't want the Agree button to be easily clickable before I look at the whole observation in full, I frequently use the custom map boundaries in Explore (which doesn't seem to be replicable in Identify), and I prefer the higher number of observations per page (refer back to first point).
Key: I am not saying "Identify is objectively terrible", so please don't get sidetracked on a wild-goose-garden-path. I'm saying that I (and presumably others) have reasons for using Explore.
Thanks! Resolving discrepancies is fun.
Out of more than 97,000 identifications so far, I’ve done probably fewer than 100 with the Identify page. I prefer using the Explore page for the same reasons mentioned by @pladacryptus_wandatus above. Please be open to supporting ALL identifiers with equivalent filters in both the Identify space and the Explore space, letting individuals find their own preferred approach, rather than dictating one way that must work for all. THAT is how iNat can best help and encourage users to chip away at the vast numbers of unconfirmed and misidentified observations.
Great! Thanks!
I'm not sure if you're asking for user interface changes, but the issue with Explore is that it's written in an old code that none of the newer pages in iNaturalist have been written in, so it won't be updated much until it's rewritten. As for making
&disagreements=available as an editable URL param on Explore, I'd be OK with that, will look into it after the weekend.Thank you, this is great! I’ve gone through my own observations to see where I need to update or withdraw my identification and found I now have an additional 4 species in my list. I would definitely have done earlier if noticed that it was a disagreement rather than a refinement.
@tiwane Great! Thanks! I would just like to have all the same filter options on the Explore page that are available on the Identify page, even if just as just an editable URL parameter thingy but preferably more easily accessible. While the Identify page is a great way to work through identifying some observations, the Explore page can be much more useful sometimes. Likewise, these filters can be very useful for custom geographic queries, not just identification queries.
Regarding the disagreements filter and identifying in the Explore page, as @pladacryptus_wandatus mentioned, the thumbnails are way too small on the Identify page to use for ID. I use the Explore page a lot to easily find misIDed observations by just scanning the thumbnails, often in combination with custom map queries. Many misIDs are really easily seen on the Explore page but you have to flip through them all to assess on the Identify page. It can be much less effort to find the low-hanging fruit on the Explore page.
Regarding the annotation fields, having those in the Explore page is extremely useful. What if I just want to easily see which observations annotated as fruiting are misIDed based on a quick review of thumbnails? What if I want to see what is annotated as flowering in a particular area at a particular time? What if I want to compare the fruit of a single species in different custom geographic regions? What is the point of annotating if you can't easily do a query using the annotation data? I don't see these filters as Identify vs. Explore filters. They are just filters and they can be just as useful on one page as the other. It just depends what you are trying to do with the data and what methodology works best for you.
peak
@keirmorse
all of your annotation queries are easily done in Explore via editing the URL
@thebeachcomber Yes, but, if the filters already exist in the Identify filter, why not just add them to the Explore filters too where they will be just as, if not more, useful? All the extra URL filters are great but using URL filters is much more clunky and time consuming than just having them easily accessible in the filter choices. I'm not sure if there is a URL filter builder page somewhere but that would be awesome to have, especially if it were on the iNat website and not just a link buried in an old post in the forum.
Tony already explained this above
so until then, the URL editing is the solution
all of the URL filtering can be found here: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/how-to-use-inaturalists-search-urls-wiki-part-1-of-2/63
@thebeachcomber Noted, I'm just saying it would be great to have even if we have to wait for the Explore page to be rewritten, which is a great reason for the Explore page to be rewritten at some point.
'I use the Explore page a lot to easily find misIDed observations by just scanning the thumbnails, often in combination with custom map queries' @keirmorse
Do you also use the Geomodel Anomaly option? Not sure how well that combines with using the custom map - I use the location filter with it.
https://www.inaturalist.org/blog/99727-using-the-geomodel-to-highlight-unusual-observations
I have my many bookmarked URLs set to show 8 obs on my screen. Thumbnails are exactly the same size whether I am in Explore or Identify. What am I missing? And I click to open a 'full' screen for most of them. Open in a new tab when I need to see the whole catastrophe.
@dianastuder Even with four-obs-per-row settings, the thumbnails on Identify are 218px across on my screen, while thumbnails on Explore are about 260px across.
@dianastuder I have used the geomodel anomaly option, which works great for finding some issues. One way I often identify is to search for a single species in a specific area and quickly scan through the thumbnails looking for those that stand out as wrong. It's not perfect but it can quickly find some of the worst misIDs.
I didn't know that I could increase the size of the thumbnails on the Identify page but just checked and, on my computer, they are still smaller than they are on the Explore page. If the measurements of @pladacryptus_wandatus are accurate, the large thumbnails on the Identify page are only about 70% of the size of those on the Explore page, which is better than the small ones but still not as easy to see details in.
But you should not be using the summary page on the ID page to make IDs - it is just for easy assessment. You should open up the individual pages per observation, which is a FAR more detailed picture than on the exploration page, and has tabs for various tools (IDs, suggestions, annotations and assessment). For easily identifiable species I can process up to 2-6 observations per minute with the ID tool for identification or annotation. I would never consider using the Explore windows to do more than a preliminary filter of the observations to use in the ID tool.
@tonyrebelo By using the Explore page, I can easily scan the roughly 100 observations it shows on each page. If there is one obvious misID on that page, I have done a quick assessment of roughly 100 observations in less than a minute and fixed the most obvious error. It's not as detailed as going through them one by one but it can clean up the worst misIDs much faster. I've used this method on species with a very large number of observations that would be too time consuming to flip through on the identify page. Consider it identification triage. Sometimes you want to treat the most critically misIDed observations before you move on the the rest or just leave the rest to their fate.
Yes: that makes sense, and I do the same. I also use the maps tab in Explore to do pull out non-planted observations out of range. But that is not to make identifications, but to look or outliers and odd cases.
However, I like to mark those I have checked as reviewed, and can therefore focus on only new data, rather than having to look at the same observations each time. I therefore dont need to see 100 at a time, 30 observations is good enough in 90% of cases. For fully half of the observations I look at, the IDs are at family or generic level with my aim to get a species level ID.
For my specialist groups, I have identified +90% of observations already, so I dont need to rapidly check large numbers of observations.
Personally, I would welcome a tool that uses the AI to look for observations that are "not true to type". But for these filters (disagreement, maveric, etc) mentioned above, I would almost exclusively use them in ID mode: they clearly need ID attention one way or the other.
In polish version this filter is called "Nieporozumień" - it does not sound good as single word. :-) Could be used as "Filtr nieporozumień" but it seems to me that better would be simply "Nieporozumienia" (or even "Niezgodność").
@keirmorse if you rough scan a hundred thumbnails, you miss? But luckily we each focus on a different set of problems, and together improve the IDs.
Multiple subjects needs a Single Subject DQA
Placeholder text in observation field for the Observer's Intended Focus on this obs.
In a particular project. (this for the Blue ...)
Location inaccurate - that is why the ID is wrong.
And generally whatever the observer or identifiers might have added - comments etc. Why / how / where do we disagree for this obs.
@dianastuder Yep, that method will miss some, but it will clear out easy-to-see misIDs way faster that going through them all in the Identify module when there are a huge amount to go through. It means there will hopefully be a lot less misIDs when someone uses the Identify module later, assuming anyone ever has the time or inclination to do that.
This filter showed that I had 12 pages of disagreements. Took a while, but I made it through all of them--and the vast majority were misidentifications on my part. Great addition, thanks! Please also add that URL to the observations modal as requested by others.
@keirmorse, @pladacryptus_wandatus, You can use the zoom feature of your browser (ctrl +/- on Windows) and make the thumbnails any size you'd like (perhaps one inconvenience removed?).
No, not really, because the zoom feature in a browser does not increase detail in images, it just blows up the low-res thing in all its low-res glory. (I am primarily interested in Quite Small Creatures whose observers don't always include a close-up image for the thumbnail; this may be less of a concern for people who work with Comparatively Larger Thingmabobs.)
@@pladacryptus_wandatus, At 120% zoom, the difference is imperceptible to me for fungus gnats. The number of antennae segments and wing venation is just as clear for Observations at 100% and Identifications at 120% (thumbnails at the same size).
I just tested this out and think it is a really great feature. Thank you for adding this! I hope it'll get incorporated on the explore page too.
It's now working as a URL param on the Explore page.
Awesome! Thanks!
Wonderful, thank you! This is very useful!
Love to see this feature - I'll definitely be using it in the future. (Also wanted to leave a positive comment somewhere today since another post is generating plenty in the other direction.)
That's a great addition! Didn't notice it on my own while spending days on that page. 😔
P.S. Want to support you vs. people who can't read or who are against using AI while most ids on the site are using AI, lol. Now there're ways to improve the site and I'm sure any grant is a great help.
@tonyrebelo for birds you can id pages of them without opening a single one, thumbnail shows everything needed. Many plants here as well as big insects I id the same way. All you need to look is multiple-photo observations as users like to combine unrelated photos. Geography and date are on the user, there're so many small errors I could mark most of observations as wrong location, but it won't do any good
Lucky that you live in a species-poor part of the world. I have alway envied the UK with THE Frog, THE Toad, THE Adder, THE Kingfisher, THE Oak, THE Heath, Yes, for some groups in some areas the thumbnails are adequate. But I check them anyway. And I do mark wrong localities: otherwise it becomes impossible to detect future location errors and delimit natural ranges (or rate of range expansions).
I love the AI: it remembers faster than I can (sometimes faster than I can type). And I find it very informative when it is wrong (and I cannot wait to see how it will explain some of those mistakes - will they be the same as beginners learning a group?).
For disagreements - it helps to see the observer's intention - if they used a placeholder.
This is for The Beetle, not the flower.
@tonyrebelo that's one of a few instances where it's good tbh, usually you can work as hard as somebody else, but get x10 less species, which is crucial for me, in comparison it looks like we're very lazy.
I mark them when they're significantly far, often it's within a hundred metres or so, not a problem if it's in the forest, but in the city it's quite a difference, but I don't want to get in fights with people, which is inevitable if you make their observations casual.
Agreed: stay away from fights. But there is a significant education component: those that appreciate learning and the info make it worthwhile, despite the agros.
@bradjunswick you know that conversation continues on the Forum post?
Good addition for sure. I agree with @adamschneider that a similar assistance would be conferred by filtering for observations with Comments.
By the way there is a bug (Win Firefox current) that causes some (lots) of observations to not show up. Easy work around is to start a new Explore page when finished (with the identical filters) and see if more observations appears. I have no idea what is happening.
@tiwane
I don't think it's working as intended
So I test it with this link
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?reviewed=any&quality_grade=needs_id%2Cresearch&per_page=100&taxon_id=87308&place_id=6966&disagreements=true
It doesn't show all of the observation with disagreement
How do I know it?
Because when I set the param to false
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?reviewed=any&quality_grade=needs_id%2Cresearch&per_page=100&taxon_id=87308&place_id=6966&disagreements=false
The result also shows some observations with disagreement.
And I crosschecked between the two links
Some observations that showed up when the param set to false do not showed up when the param set to true.
In my logic, if set to true then: only observations with disagreement
if set to any then: all the observations
if set to false then: only observations without disagreement
Am I missing something or some detail about how this works?
@zebs it would be helpful if you can point to specific observations here. For the latter search, I do see a few observations that have a disagreeing ID: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/193579731, https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/44980747, and https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/44980748
Note that those disagreements are disagreeing with an ID that's no longer active, so we don't count it as a disagreement with the filter as we're trying to surface observations with active disagreements that could use more people weighing in. I can edit the blog post and specify this. For the record, the code says:
Number of current disagreeing idents that disagreed with a taxon that is among (or an ancestor of) one of the taxa in other current idents@tiwane
Yes, you point to the correct observations.
And you have answer my question.
I plan to edit the search_url page to include this parameter. Any other remarks of how the parameter works? So I can describe the filter as the code intended
@bradjunswick no, it was disabled because of users who didn't read it correctly, similar to what you wrote here.
I can find almost nothing when using the above for my own observations (just 4). To find lots more, I am using
https://jumear.github.io/stirfry/iNatAPIv1_identifications.html?user_id=amzamz&per_page=200&page=1&own_observation=true¤t_taxon=false
and then within the page I am searching for "descendant" in the column "ID vs Obs Taxon". (hundreds)
Honestly, I do not understand this matter, but it works for now.
Win some, lose some. And tweak by location / taxon to narrow it down to a manageable target.
78K for the Rest of the World
UPDATE and UP to 89.7K in January 2026
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?verifiable=any&ttl=900&v=1745531104000&disagreements=true&project_id=227779&place_id=any
Including 5K for the original 'winner'
UPDATE down to 2.7K in January 2026
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?verifiable=any&ttl=900&v=1745531104000&disagreements=true&project_id=227779&place_id=6784
@amzamz disagreements filter is intended to help you ID for others.
If you want to find your own disagreements you can use
https://www.inaturalist.org/identifications?user_id=dianastuder&category=maverick
I currently have 6 and I stand by those IDs.
https://www.inaturalist.org/identifications?user_id=amzamz&category=maverick
Then Pre-Mavericks - your 30 obs trapped in limbo. Would have to @mention another taxon specialist if you want to move those
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?order_by=observed_on&order=asc&project_id=156949&user_id=amzamz&place_id=any
Decided to check up on my mavericks.
Quite a few of them are IDs on observations where the user has subsequently Blocked me.
Absurdly, taxonomical name changes are not made when names are updated. So I am stuck with the "inactive" name as a maverick on these observations, which is in disagreement with the current updated name. And nothing I can do about it.
Seems a bit over the top.
Plus the ID now counts as a disagreement!
Here are two examples:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/9844741
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/9880715
@tiwane
i believe there is a bug if that is the case.
random example:
ID A: some Spider species
ID B: Harvestmen order (explicit disagreement to A spiders species)
ID C: Spider order
now ID A - withdrawn.
so there is still disagreement existing purely from active IDs B and C, but the filter cannot find that if I am right because it is relying only on checking ancestors of active ID C while trying with ID B disagreement information (note A withdrawn last)
I finally made my first code commit to fix this bug and I think this will also now capture more true active disagreements when the index updates.
I'm finding this capability very useful. If @einsum's fix helps find even more discrepancies, I hope it can be worked in.
This is a bit old but I don't see that Disagreements option on my iNat login. I've tried it on and off for months but I just don't see it.
@jkehoe Are you specifically going to the Identify tab? It doesn't show up on the Explore tab (which is where I do my identifying)
@pladacryptus_wandatus - thanks, that's why!
Add a Comment