Hi everyone,
I created this simple page to see how many of the top-most observed species in a specific taxon in a city I have spotted. You can try it below; you will need to know the place_id and your username. Please let me know if you have any feedback about it.
Super cool tool! Only thing of note is that it seems to have issues if a species has subspecies.
For example, in South Australia, I have seen emus (Dromaius novaehollandiae) but haven’t ever identified them to their mainland subspecies. As a result, the tool doesn’t mark emus as seen by me. It also doesn’t mark rock doves (Columba livia) as seen by me even though I have seen their subspecies.
It’s not accurate for me at all. For Long Island(128205) it is saying I have observed 37/100 plant species, when I have observed all of them.
I have over 50 observations of Ailanthus altissima on LI yet it says I haven’t observed it.
It only counts if you have seen that species in the place itself, so you have seen 37/100 plants in Long Island itself, if you have seen outside of it, it doesn’t count
That’s true, I will see if I can fix it
This is a neat, clean presentation/interface - it looks good! But yeah, at the moment it’s not catching a lot of the species I’ve observed.
For example, it says I’ve observed the Northern Cardinal in Sedgwick County (which is in Kansas, place ID 1296), but that I haven’t observed it in Kansas (place ID 25). But I have again in the USA (place ID 1).
It’s also a bit weird to have a scroll bar for the place ID (and to be able to input negative numbers) - those ID numbers are so random, I can’t imagine wanting to scroll to them instead of just typing in the number. But that’s no biggie! :-)
I’m having the same issue as those above. Here’s an example – it says I haven’t observed a spotted lanternfly in the Pittsburgh Region place, but I have 17 observations of the species in the region if I search on iNat. (Just from a quick scroll through I think I should have something like 94/100, not 22/100.)
The concept looks super cool though, and the interface is very nice!
One more thing - I’m really itching to click on those species and get sent to the iNaturalist taxon page in a new window :-)
Edit: Oh, and displaying the written name of the input place ID somewhere on the page (after hitting search) would be cool, too.
you’re getting a user’s species in an inefficient way, similar to what i noted over at https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/browser-extension-for-highlighting-observed-species-in-the-explore-page/65842.
look at how the dynamic life list in iNat (ex. https://www.inaturalist.org/lifelists/pisum) gets data, or look at how my tool that utilizes the underlying API route (ex. https://jumear.github.io/stirfry/iNat_observations_taxonomy?user_id=pisum&taxon_id=47120&place_id=18) functions.
Thanks! I updated the api call now
I fixed it now using a different api call, it should be working
I fixed the api call now, it should return all observations from that place
No, I’m certain I’ve observed all of those species on LI. I keep track of the species I am missing, and my top missing species is Amaranthus cruentus which doesn’t crack the top 250.
And now it works, a minute later.
Can we get it increased to 500 or 1000 species by chance?
I added up to 500 species now
Nice tool! Question: Does it count my captive/cultivated observations? I noticed I’m missing a few animals in my county and these include: domestic dog, domestic cat, domestic cattle, domestic goat, domestic horse, domestic sheep… I’m sure I have some of these but they are of course marked captive.
Also, moose shows up but when I click on it there are zero observations for moose in my county. When I go into filters and uncheck “verifiable” it will show me the observation in question. It is obviously a moose with calf and was rendered casual by several people marking the location as inaccurate (there are indeed no moose where I live, not even captive ones, the picture must have been taken elsewhere). In the context of this tool, it doesn’t make much sense to include observations marked as location inaccurate.
To address this, it might be nice to be able to toggle between including casual or only verifiable observations.
This is cool! I have 91 out of 100, so I know what to go looking for now.
This is really quite nifty, and now seemingly working as intended. Thanks for the effort, and thanks for sharing!
If you’re inclined, another thing that would be kind of neat is if one could run queries not just on the iconic taxa, but also optionally by taxon ID - thus allowing a search for “butterflies” for example, and not just “insects.”
One anomaly I have found - I checked it for my local government area, and it said I had 96 of the top 100. OK! But one of the 4 I’m allegedly missing is genus Netelia. That’s surprising, as I know I have observations of Netelia here. So I checked the 25 observations of Netelia in my area, and I did 11 of them:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=14703&taxon_id=250370
Edit: Another of the 4 I am allegedly missing is genus Tasmanicosa. But I do have 3 of them:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=14703&taxon_id=420085&view=observers
So is there a problem with both because they are only able to be IDed to genus level?
So I really have 98 out of 100, which is nice.
Sorry about this but I have one more feature request. Is it possible for us to see our missing species at the top if we sort it?
