I see a few options exist for customising the way general search results are presented (webpage interface), i.e. restriction of hits to a named taxon (i.e.as the “taxon_id=xx”), or better plus URL adaptation (e.g. &without_taxon_id=xxx) to then further exclude some named subgroups within the wide focal taxon.
But, even with such filters implemented as above, i’m failing to see a way to then even further filter hits that are not yet assigned to any subgroups, e.g. either where still disagreement, or simply they are left unassigned.
Is there some way to exclude a given observation with these filters? Each observation seems to have a unique number (i.e. observations/111222333), but is there some way to then specify that particular one for exclusion? Then obviously multiple (individual) observations seems excludable as (111222333,222333444,333444555), but first how to exclude just one of them?
Thanks! - seems I had missed the key part on that in the wiki. Yes, this is effectively what i was asking about, so effectively resolved.
I guess part of my issue is that i’m really not trying to ‘identify’ other peoples observations (although i do), but like many i’m trying to exploit the observations for understanding the taxa - and for many of the organisms of my focus its often possible to recognise as ‘morphospecies’ but it’s not yet described (so not in the hierarchy)
For the “I don’t understand”, for ‘hits’ then yes observations, but there i meant the subset shown to the user after filtering etc. For the ‘subgroups’, yes let’s equate that to subtaxa in this context - e.g. a species within a genus, etc. Apologies. Lastly, yes, my “unassigned” can equate to “unidentified” (e.g. only “identified” as a genus but not into a species subtaxon). Point is at any taxonomic level there can be many observations without any ‘subtaxon identification’. I just struggle with using the word “identified” on the system as so many of the “identifications” of the moment can be wrong or vague.
Anyway, despite our struggles of differing use of terms, thank-you for showing me a viable option about this. Seems completely bizarre to me that as you said, as per the wiki that “(Note that not_id only works in Identify, while id also works in Explore)”. I was basically trying to see about making a tedious workaround to not being able to exclude some that i put in custom groups using field tags, for which the wiki says “Note that &without_field= and &without_field_id= are currently not implemented”
Below is the kind of convoluted URL i’m left with to make a custom view (of six) observations out of eleven “identified” to a genus, after excluding two already in two different species, and three others i want to exclude. And so it seems only indeed works this way under “identify” not “explore” so i can’t easily map together the remainder etc.