Platform (Android, iOS, Website): all
Browser, if a website issue (Firefox, Chrome, etc) : all
URLs (aka web addresses) of any relevant observations or pages: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations
Searches using the Descriptions/Tags field in the Filter options in Explore will not penetrate/scrape data entered into Observation Fields. There is a tiny fraction of any utility in having these fields be created and populated by users if their contents are exiled from basic (or even advanced) site search functions. Perhaps they are searchable by some URL hack or in a tucked away, obscure page. That’s fine. They also need to be searchable in the most obvious and useful place where searches, and filters for searches, are performed.
A use case of mine, from moments ago, is attempting to recall https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/84633145 via the query ‘RLC951’ in the Description/Tags field. In this case, the corresponding observation is returned by the search, only because that character string is entered in the Notes field. If, however, I wish to bring up https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/84628959 with the query ‘RLC953,’ it will not appear, as the string is only present in the form of an Observation Field entitled, ‘Voucher Number.’
If my cursory, failed attempts to find related bug reports were reflective of there being no such report on the site, I will, frankly, be shocked. This seems like too vital a flaw to have gone unnoticed until me.
2 Likes
I don’t think this is a bug as the functionality is working as intended. Tags and descriptions are different than observation fields and are treated as such. Users can search observation fields using these instructions:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/how-to-use-inaturalists-search-urls-wiki-part-2-of-2/18792
among other ways.
Changing this search functionality would be more of a Feature Request. However, we’re not accepting feature requests for the Explore page currently. There is an open thread for suggestions you can add to here:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/ideas-for-a-revamped-explore-observations-search-page/8439
1 Like
unconscionably poor development choice on iNat’s part, imo. I don’t know if you actually looked at your own link, but the part that matters:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/how-to-use-inaturalists-search-urls-wiki-part-2-of-2/18792
only describes functionality allowing a) the finding of observations possessing a given field, b) finding of observations with a given field and a given value in that field, and c) observations without a given field. that only leaves out the most useful option: searching for a specific value within any/all observation field(s). one of the things that makes the need for this missing functionality even greater than it otherwise would be is iNat’s aggressive nonstandardization policy of Observation Field names. want search results by substrate/host? under the current system, you must go and find every observation field with every conceivable permutation of spelling and word choice/order, and hamfistedly smush them into your search url.
I would never suggest that any iNat user utilize Observation Fields while they are this deliberately crippled by the people running the site.
3 Likes
IMO you won’t win much favor this way. I sincerely doubt the people running this site deliberately cripple it. Like shooting yourself in your own foot ?
This topic was automatically closed after 25 hours. New replies are no longer allowed.