GBIF uploads from iNat — why are some skipped?

General
21

I got some to change with marking proof of organism in the DQA.

22

so it sounds like voting in any category that could change the GBIF sync status will force the badge to show, even if you’re just reinforcing the existing DQA validation that it can be synced. interesting to see people testing it in different ways!

2 Likes
23

Yes!
I still agree with NOT spending time going back through them!
I’ll try to remember at time of posting…

24

Seems to be a synching issue, similar to when a record seems stuck at Needs ID even when it has confirming IDs. Playing with the DQA fixes it.

2 Likes
25

I was able to do the toggling trick to get the GBIF badge to show on some observations where it wasn’t, but I found an RG CC-BY observation of mine from 2018 that didn’t import into GBIF: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/27481870. Any ideas? I didn’t think the name was the issue, since I have an observation of the same species in GBIF in 2021, but I found another observation from 2022 of the same species that isn’t in there either: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/124498673

I have 5 observations like this, here are the others:.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/32277925
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/88075965
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/236068556

26

Some of those only became RG in the last few weeks or days. It can take a week for an observation to be exported to GBIF once it reaches RG status, then maybe another day or two for them to ingest it. Then it takes a few more weeks for the GBIF badge to appear on the observation on iNat. So I wouldn’t expect any of these three to have a GBIF badge, regardless of the display issue discussed above.

You can also see there have been some errors with GBIF trying to ingest iNat exports lately: https://registry.gbif.org/dataset/50c9509d-22c7-4a22-a47d-8c48425ef4a7/ingestion-history As far as I know this isn’t due to an issue on the iNat end, might be something GBIF has to fix.

2 Likes
27

Oh, of course, I was looking at the age of the observation, not the age it became RG. Doh!

1 Like