I have some RG records from last November and December that have been uploaded to GBIF and others that have not yet been. All are the same copyright (CC-BY-NC) and attained RG fairly soon after submission. Just curious if we know why some might be delayed or possibly not uploaded at all. I understand that it can be months before a record is incorporated into GBIF but the sequence is kind of a mystery.
1 Like
do you have an example of a record that you believe isn’t in GBIF, but was posted from around the same time as other records that are
Some species may not have been added to iNat with an appropriate GBIF link. If you’re noticing it happen with specific species rather than just a general bug, let a curator know.
This one is GBIF: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/256189806
But the records that precede and follow this one in submission are not.
It’s an interesting mix of added/not added, maybe based on how GBIF pulls in different taxa at different times.
could you please flick me a link to one that isn’t
Not in: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/253047055
But the one that follows is GBIF: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/253079171
both of those records are in GBIF, here’s the heron in GBIF: https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/4987427232
so this is an issue relating to the GBIF badge displaying on the observation, rather than an issue with it actually going into GBIF. I just checked a few more, and all of them are in GBIF
3 Likes
Interesting, thanks. Yes, would appear to be an inconsistency in if or when the badge appears in the iNat record. I wasn’t really concerned, just trying to understand it.
2 Likes
The same problem exists for Australian observations going into the Atlas of Living Australia (the Australian GBIF node), with the badge displaying very inconsistently
2 Likes
I’ve occasionally noticed an error on the iNaturalist side that might be another cause of this for other observations – the GBIF badge will not be displayed upon first loading a page, but if anything is clicked that changes the GBIF syncing status/permission (like marking it as cultivated or any other casual-making DQA vote), the badge will suddenly appear, albeit with the “Please wait a few weeks for the change to sync” disclaimer.
3 Likes
I clicked on the Data Quality Assessment for the heron record on iNat, changing it from wild to captive and back again to wild. The GBIF badge suddenly appeared in the record.
1 Like
Huh. I just looked at some of my observations from a couple years ago. Some showed the GBIF badge, some didn’t. @sbrobeson 's trick with changing it to casual and back did work to make it show. Interesting oddity.
1 Like
Something to do in our spare time: go through all our older records, playing with the DQA to make the GBIF badge appear. Or maybe not.
2 Likes
Yup! Going to devote my abundant spare time to this!
5 Likes
I wonder if just upvoting that it’s wild will do the thing
So I tried just upvoting “wild” in data quality, it did the trick. No need to change observation status for this
2 Likes
I can find my observations on ALA but ALA does not show up on the observation.
Not an issue.
I wonder if the ALA upload is curated. It uploaded one out of five photos of the grass observation I checked and that is the best one for confirming the identity. I would have added another photo that shows a characteristic of the taxa, the rest are for completeness.
1 Like
for each record that goes into the ALA, one random (and yes, it is literally random, I’ve been trying to get this changed) photo from the record goes into the main gallery for that taxon. This is intentional to prevent the gallery being overwhelmed by eg hundreds of thousands of magpie photos. However, when you view that individual record on the ALA, all photos from the iNat side also go to the ALA side.
1 Like
Thank you for the clarification, I can see the complete set of photos on the detail page.
Yes, I just did the same to several of my older RG records with no GBIF badge and that fixed it.