Hi Rod,
As you saw in the other message, the main problem that we have now is have the same voucher represented twice because NYBG had a DIGIR source and now have an IPT source. People at NYBG said that they ask GBIF to remove DIGIR, but still there. Maybe it occurs with other sources as well.
Related with the feedback of the data cleaning process I'm indeed interested in this discussion, but I'm not sure if this list is the best forum to do it.
Here at the National Center for Flora Conservation - CNCFlora, at the risk assessments, we just use occurrences that were validated by experts, taxonomically and spatially. This information may be useful, especially if the expert made some correction or comment on the occurrence. I can see that this is related with annotation initiatives, such as AnnoSys and FilteredPush. In my ideal and fantastic world, we would have an annotation feature on GBIF occurrences, where experts can interact with the material. In our Virtual Herbarium of Repatriated Plants, the experts can suggest new names if they have a login.
However, what is usual is the duplication of efforts for georeferencing the legacy occurrences. For example, different efforts, methodologies and uncertainty levels have been applied in different duplicates of the same occurrence, held by different herbaria.
I thought that the feedback about data improvement should be sent directly to the data provider but, please, if there is something else let me know.
Cheers,
Eduardo
