I created a saved query for Unknown observations starting with Jun 2015. Occasionally, mostly when I’m feeling masochistic, I take a crack at a few pages and mark them as Reviewed. I’ve made it up to the bioblitz in May 2016. I know this because many of the user IDs have “bioblitz” in them. I don’t know what proportion the Unknown ones form of the total # of observations, but not many of them can be improved; unless a miracle happpens and these users come back to split the observations they are not worth anyone else looking at. I optimistically hope that what I’m seeing is a tiny proportion of the total of the bioblitz, so all I see the dross!
As I progress, I am becoming rabid again about believing that someone (curators? other holy people (lol)) should be able to split multiple photo observations. I understand the issues about place and time, but when we know the images are part of a bioblitz (either by ID choice, or place/time) assigning a date based on the bioblitz dates and assigning the same place as the initial observation (perhaps set to an accuracy of a mile), along with a DQA flag indicating that time and place were estimated, many of these obs could be retrieved. And let’s face it, few of these participants are coming back (at least with the same ID).
OK. I’ll stop ranting.