When filtering by Location “Socotra”, the only option presented is “Socotra Drive, Saint Austell, UK” - thus it is impossible to filter out observations of the Socotra Archipelago.
If you check this observation for instance https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/142851402 you see that Socotra is correctly presented in Details - as “Socotra Archipelago, HD, YE”, and when clicked will activate a custom boundary. But this cannot be entered in the Location filter, as only “Socotra Drive, Saint Austell, UK” is avaibale there.
Windows 10 Desktop
Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Brave.
Works as expected in Android app.
The Location search often doesn’t work for iNat-defined places, please use Filters->More Filters->Place.
So is the Location filter on Android “Place”, and not “Location”? It’s a bit confusing, as on Android the highest available search option in UI results the expected Socotra, while on Desktop the same level location filter contains no Socotra.
Highest UI level filter for location should provide the same filter availability/result on all platforms.
The UI is inconsistent and this seems definitely like a bug, as the locations are data-driven, not user generated.
Place is iNat place, location is Google place, on website and app.
On desktop iNat does not find “Socotra”, you have to click Filter + enter “Socotra” in Place.
On Android iNat finds “Socotra” - no need to go deeper in menu structure.
Thus, top-level search is different on desktop than on Android, and should be the same.
On desktop the first available searh field should be Place, as Place is default on Android. In fact there is no Location search available on Android Filters, as the Filters submenu does not contain any additional Location/Place option, as it is already available on top-level on Android, and that makes it a confusing UI/UX.
Desktop UI should present the same logic, which is top-level should always be Place on Desktop, as it is on Android.
No, it shouldn’t be, most Google places have no analogues on iNat, people should be able to search for their town easily without figuring out there’s no place lower than county level.
I agree that it’s unclear and can be confusing, but this isn’t a bug (as defined here) - it’s how each are intentionally designed. But unfortunately we won’t be working on an update of the Explore page on the website until it’s rewritten, and at the moment we’ve prioritized other functionality, like a rewritten mobile app, over revamping of the Explore page.
In the meantime, I recommend using the header search if you want to search for an iNat place. That’s the quickest way to see observations made in an iNat place, and you can filter further from there. It’s not perfect, of course, but there are workarounds that will get you there.
Header search was a useful tip - thanks! I have always regarded that as a species search.