All suggestions in the forum, neither for observations nor for identifications are not working and the API documentation does not contain any
&without_field parameters, so i reckon that the feature simply is not implemented, hence the feature request.
Here is an example of what i would like to accomplish with that filter:
It used to work!! It doesn’t now :-( I really need it to work because I use it often.
Then vote for that feature request ;-)
I cannot as I have no votes left!
Also, this should perhaps be a bug report rather than a feature request, because it did used to work.
You could unvote another less important one, then you have one more vote left.
I could, but I choose not to. Mostly because I think this is in fact a bug report not a feature request.
Given the new discussion happening here, I wouldn’t worry too much about votes on Feature Requests. Staff will still see the Feature Request topics that get posted, and prioritize the ones they deem suitable.
That said, this request certainly has my support! Let’s wait for staff to weigh in on whether this is a bug or not. It’s possible that the previous functionality was intentionally disabled for some reason.
The API has never supported a
without_field parameter, but it is a feature we would consider adding
This feature would be a huge help.
The New York City EcoFlora is asking folks to mark White Snakeroot observations that show evidence of leaf miners. The activity is called LOOK FOR LEAF MINERS FROM HOME. It’s a special pandemic activity. We ask people to score the Leaf Miner observation field as YES, NO, UNCLEAR.
There are 17,000 observations from New York City. There are ways of filtering the observations to narrow the field (e.g., by date, by county, by observer, etc…) but it would be helpful to start with a fresh batch of unmarked observations each session.
I voted yes for this feature. Thank you!
A year later since the last remark here, @pleary is this still being considered to implement?
I would like to add certain fields to potentially largish quantities of observations for different purposes (burls, pinned specimen, cicada evidence type are recent examples for me). But as the number of “now fielded” observations rises, I’ll be pulling up an unnecessarily large set in Identify to click through, just to fish for the remaining unlabeled ones.
another 12 months.
I just started to understand the fields section, and what i can’t find is how to exclude certain bunch of observations which can be custom group by fields … seems like what you’ll were crying out for.
Did this ever get looked at? it would be super helpful to have this feature, but it doesn’t app’tear to be working. I’ve got a project with thousands of observations where i want to go through them all and add a field, but using thee ‘reviewed’ button doesn’t work as i may have looked at some of these before. And i’d want to be able to also do this in regular search not just identify, if possible.
without_field and without_field_value would be absolutely super helpful and a great addition to the searchfuncrionality and it would also be great to see that in the search panel options
i vote for this in best hope
Stumbled across this thread while searching the forums for how to do this, I’m sad it’s not an option. I’m trying to go through all my gall observations and add the “Host” field to the ones that are lacking it, but it seems there’s no way to tell which need it without opening every observation to check.
It’s gonna be a long slog, I have a few thousand observations I’ll have to go through :/
Yes it is a very extreme unfortunate situation!
Some ideas which may can help you out for now, until this issue/bug/feature-request gets solved (hopefully soon)
May you can add your observations to a meaningfull project.
From there you can export the data as a CVS file.
If you export the data it will ask you for all kind of fields which you want to export.
Choose the fields as you like, the list with and without fields, and compare or sort out the list in an external application.
Dont forget to vote for this request (beside the title of this forum topic) and to like all the requesting/begging posts ;)