As you know the quality of data from the iNaturalist site is frequently poor and fraught with difficulties. It may help verifiers to sort the wheat from the chaff by including quality filters that can
1. Exclude all records where the recorder was not logged in
2. Exclude records where the grid reference is only to two figures
There may be others that would help, what do you think?
Quality of data from the iNaturalist
"As you know the quality of data from the iNaturalist site is frequently poor" That's a sweeping statement that isn't true. Data quality on iNaturalist can be better than that verified on iRecord, because it has often been seen by many people, some of whom are world experts or have detailed knowledge. There are wrongly verified records on iRecord and verification is carried out by only 1 person which is a weakness.
On the few occasions I've…
On the few occasions I've looked at iNaturalist I've usually found a misidentified "Research Grade" photo within 5 minutes. If there's world experts out there they certainly aren't looking at UK stuff. Try filtering for Panorpa germanica and see how many misidentified P. communis you can spot, and how many photos that show no diagnostic features at all have nevertheless been confidently identified.
Filtering
If the original enquiry relates to the Explore pages, then it is possible to filter out the iNaturalist records altogether by going to "Create a filter" and using the "Source" settings. As mentioned above, all the iNaturalist records within iRecord are flagged as "not logged in" as the two systems are independent.
We are working on providing additional filtering options for records with very imprecise locations.
Logged in to what?? They will have been logged in to iNaturalist to record. They will not be logged in to iRecord. I use both sites.