Add "mark all as reviewed" button to bottom of ID page or page numbers to top of ID page

#1

Currently as I try to increase the #s of IDs (usually high-level) I make, I find that I waste time or get confused sometimes having to scroll up and down to mark things then scroll back to reach the next page. Perhaps you tech-savvy folks have a work-around to share or there’s a function I’m missing? Or perhaps others will agree that time can be saved and confusion prevented by moving one or both of these buttons so they are either together at the top or bottom of page.

0 Likes

#2

You can try scaling your browser page so that the whole page fits in the screen. In chrome I use ctrl + or ctrl - to rescale. Of course, if you are on a tablet, this will not be a good solution!

0 Likes

#3

This isn’t really a fix, but maybe might help your workflow?
I sometimes change the number of observations per page by adding per_page=X to the URL, e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?per_page=80. You could make it smaller if you want to avoid scrolling up and down.
You may also have a keyboard with a home button that will take you directly to the top of the page.

5 Likes

#4

thanks to both of you for your suggestions. I’ll give them a try and see if they work for now.

Thanks again,
Mira

0 Likes

#5

@jwidness thanks! I did not know about being able to change the number per page… very cool! Can we double-heart comments?!

Does anyone have a list of url hacks? I appreciate not all are going to work in all pages, but a master list of things to try would be awesome :slight_smile:

0 Likes

#6

just curious, does my comment above this have a pencil mark? I edited it immediately after posting it, and it looks like a quick change doesn’t show it as edited… maybe you have until viewed by someone else to make changes without it showing as an edit…

0 Likes

#7

I don’t see the pencil mark. Does the comment have it the way you edited it? Did you save it?

1 Like

#8

as an after thought, I added “Can we double-heart comments?!” to the first paragraph… so thumbs up… we can make quick corrections and they don’t show as edits, but after peeps have viewed or replied, we have an audit trail for changes… best of both worlds!

I am so so liking this new forum!

1 Like

#9

that’s good to know–I also liked it that while you were typing your answer I could see your picture and “replying”

1 Like

#10

To revive the core of this thread a bit… Yes, I’ve opined before on the google group that, for all pages with the potential to be long and require vertical scrolling, the page-wide tools and navigation controls really should be made continuously visible for the most productive user experience. Putting them in floating panel off to the side would be ideal, but at least have them available at both top and bottom of each page.

2 Likes

#11

I started a wiki here, you should be able to add my original post if your trust level is high enough.

Once thing I’m constanly surprised by is how many different methods and workflows people have for the Identify page. Would you mind sharing yours in a bit more detail, I can’t quite envision what you mean here. Add a screenshot would be helpful as well.

1 Like

#12

@tiwane I have struck a similar thing with having the page scaled so that the images are larger, but then having to scroll back up to get to the “mark all as reviewed button”, being able to control how many per page (ie other than 30) does mitigate that though, and it would be really cool to be able to set a default for that on the settings page…

1 Like

#13

Hmmm, this was working great as I trudged through my 50,000 unreviewed items. The maximum I could get to work per page was &per_page=200

After a while of working through these at this rate, I decided to try and increase the number. I got a 404 response. Perhaps I’ve been doing to much and got blocked??

I hope I didn’t break anything :frowning:

Update 08:10 local time - All working again.

2 Likes

#14

Generally I think iNaturalist will not block anyone for trying to do too much :wink: If anything it will be encouraged!

But in the process you might occasionally find limits to server or processing capacity, as I suspect might have happened when it tried to assemble more than 200 observations on an identify page.

I often bump up against similar limits when trying to upload a batch of observations with many large photographs, although in that case they all seem to end up processing eventually…

1 Like

#15

Thanks for that input.

Now, having spent a large portion of my morning on marking items as reviewed, I’ve given this a bit of thought.

I wonder if this is an area where an upgrade to the features would be of value to users. I essentially have 50,000 records in my inbox (email analogy). It’s down to me for not keeping on top of this. I wonder if we are using this feature as it was intended.

My aim going forward is to clear my backlog and then to try to stay on top of it by reviewing my “inbox” daily. Perhaps we need (1) a better way to mass-manage this as well as well as (2) perhaps a clearer help on the intent of this feature.

My tuppence worth (two cents in US money) :wink:

3 Likes

#16

You also have to remember that we are ALL working on the same inbox, so you are not alone in the mammoth task!

I use the Needs ID page with a custom search, let’s say from January 1st 2019… and it’s sorted in date ascending order, not reverse like the default Needs ID is. I also include casual obs too… and I don’t restrict it to Needs ID, ie I review everything! I will confirm and add weight to IDs where I am able to do so as well. I have this search bookmarked and it is my main workflow entry. When I encounter obs of things I need reference work to ID, I bookmark them into a subfolder of my iNat bookmarks, and after I run out of “easy IDs” I then go back and work on the reference needed ones. When those are exhausted, I fall back on the standard Needs ID page and chip away at the backlog from pre- Jan 1st. I simply stop when I have had enough or run out of time, and then repeat the process at my next session. I should also add that I am through the NZ domain, so have a New Zealand filter by default.

This Needs ID process is a considerable improvement on what it used to be, and I would be hesitant to change it from what it is now.

2 Likes

#17

Thanks for the detail on how you approach this. I will look at this and give it a try. I did recognise that the Power-users/Curators must have a different approach to me. I think you have perhaps hit on a few of their tricks. Perhaps a Help file with this detail would help others. Just a thought.

I’ve worked through my 50,000 entries with the help given on items per page and simply slogged through it. A thought - Does a new UK user who has just joined Inat have 50,000 items to review since they haven’t reviewed anything before. I think that is how I got this many to review (Perhaps). If yes, then we need to offer a better mass-management approach.

I was not around for the older version of Needs-ID, but I agree, there are some things you only change after a lot of careful study. I am not suggesting this at all…

2 Likes

#18

The “number to review” is simply the total observations that are at “Needs ID” status (ie not RG and not casual). If you do nothing and come back a day later, then there will be observations added during that day, many of which will remain as Needs ID (adding to the count), and there will be many of them and also many older obs that become RG and so are removed from that count. When you mark them as reviewed, it does not alter that they are Needs ID, but simply removes them from the list as far as you yourself are concerned. If you know nothing about birds, for instance, you could exclude Aves from your view into the Identify page (using the filter box and then bookmarking the page), or you could filter to only aves and then mark every one as reviewed, which is where setting the items per page to 200 would come in handy! Or you could filter to only show the classes/orders etc that you are knowledgable in.

The workflow I mentioned is my preferred method, and there will be others. The great thing about this version of the Identify / Needs ID page is that it allows great flexibility in how you choose to approach it.

You do not have to review every observation. I scan each page looking for things I can help with, and there are many that I don’t even try with! I try to make at least as many identifications as I make observations, so that I get a feeling of contributing as much as I am benefiting, but again there is no requirement for that, it just makes me happier within myself! In fact, my IDs are over 5x what my obs are at, and I take that as an indicator that perhaps I should get the camera out a bit more often!

Most importantly as far as I am concerned, the iNat experience should be a fun and educational experience!

1 Like

#19

because the issue I’m referencing can’t be seen in a screen shot I don’t know how to visually convey without you sitting next to me. If I scale the page so that everything (including page #s and “mark all reviewed” button) can be seen without scrolling the photos (my cue to see if I can add an ID) become too small to be useful. Maybe I misunderstand your question though, @tiwane? that’s always a possibility!

2 Likes

#20

I wanted to give an update on my work on Reviewing items during March so far (1st to 9th). Just FYI only.

  1. I decided to work through all of my Un-reviewed items. I marked all of the really old ones as Reviewed without adding any new ID’s. I did not want to ID anything that was e.g. 7 years old.

  2. Newer items, e.g. within the most recent month were reviewed and some ID’s made

  3. I reviewed approximately 50,000 Needs ID records and approximately 100,000 Research Grade ID’s. So, about 150,000 records in total. I used the Identify page sorted by oldest records first and used the Per_page=200 parameter.

  4. The time taken to review all of these is estimated to be about 16 hours (possibly more). Recall, this is by using the Mark All As Reviewed button then moving to the bottom of the page and selecting next page so that records were updated.

  5. Of the 150,000 records reviewed, I gave ID’s to 240. So that is 0.16% of the records reviewed.

Edited to correct my record count. Sorry, I had double counted.

2 Likes