Expert & peer review

All of a sudden our data review process has taken shape. Here's how we think it'll play out:

Expert Review
Sarah & Sarah will assign specific species to selected "experts." These expert reviewers will have the power to change the status of species identifications from Pending to Confirmed or Questioned. They will then suggest a different identification (as necessary), and leave a comment.

These special reviewers will be given this “expert reviewer status” on their profile page (community participation statistics).

Peer/ Community Review
All users will be able to suggest a different identification and comment on a data record. Clicking on username will help the community figure out if this is user is credible or not. Comments won't be limited to the species identification - we'll encourage notes on photographs, measurements, field notes, ....

No Edits!
Further, no one will be able to edit a data record once it has been submitted (not even species experts changing incorrect identifications). “Corrections” will be made on the Species Observation Detail page as suggested identifications and comments.

The big issue with this is that the map view may be confusing and terribly misleading to those who don’t understand the review process (They found hydrilla there!?!)…but it may work to our advantage to motivate discussion and drive people to find out more.

This approach is certainly in line with MCIAP and DEP wanting to be alerted of any species that looks "suspicious." And suggesting an identification and commenting both allow the data collector to change her mind after the fact - while preserving the valuable thought trail and data integrity.