Getting error message when batch editing more than 100 observations

Platform (Android, iOS, Website): Website, Mac OS Ventura 13.4

Browser, if a website issue (Firefox, Chrome, etc) : Tested both in Safari (version 16.5) and Firefox (version 114.0.1) with the same result

URLs (aka web addresses) of any relevant observations or pages: Not connected to a specific observation.

Screenshots of what you are seeing (instructions for taking a screenshot on computers and mobile devices:

Screenshot 2023-06-14 at 12.54.34

Description of problem (please provide a set of steps we can use to replicate the issue, and make as many as you need.):

Step 1: I wanted to batch edit many of my observations that had missing GPS accuracy values.

Step 2: I successfully batch edited the first 3 pages of my observations (200 displayed each, about 80% of them were selected and edited)

Step 3: It worked for pages 1-3 of my observations, but on page 4 I always get the error message " Incomplete response received from application". I have tried different browsers, logging in and out etc. but I always get the same error. I also tried going to the next page (5) of 200 observations, still the same. I can go back to the batch editing page but the changes are not being saved.

Step 4: Lowering the number of observations per page to 100, it now seems to work even if I select and edit all of them.


I’m having the exact same issue - works fine for 100 observations. Perhaps the web page should either limit batch editing to 100 or at least have a warning message.


Why is there no answe to this?

I have the same problem, and it’s very annoying. A few times it worked okay this morning, but now it keeps crashing. You know, for 50 observations I don’t need the batch option, I can do this manually if necessary. However, for 500 observations it would be crucial to have this option (and not crashing, please).

Thank you for looking into this. I’d appreciate.

It’s an old page on the site and I think sometimes hits a limit or times out.

I’m curious, what sorts of things are you editing at this scale if you don’t mind me asking? It looks like GPS accuracy value is one.

Yes, for me it was GPS accuracy. I had many observations (uploaded from my old phone) without GPS accuracy values. This was a problem because RG observations pushed to GBIF also get shared with the main Swedish biodiversity platform Artdatabanken, where missing accuracy values automatically get set to 20 km accuracy. So when I realised this I set all observations uploaded from that old phone to 30m accuracy, which in my case made sense because I always make sure to report as precise a location as possible (and most of the photos from that phone got automatically GPS-tagged anyways, just without accuracy value).

1 Like

out of interest is this intentional or a bug? Seems like a poor decision if the former

1 Like

I never found out the exact reason why, just realised that my observations without accuracy values ended up with a 20km circle while the ones with accuracy values had that exact accuracy propagated all the way through, and then decided I would simply add an estimated accuracy value to all my past and future observations.

My guess would be that the Swedish portal has a requirement for an accuracy value (it has when I directly upload observations there), and fills in automatically with a conservative 20km when the accuracy is missing from iNat, so intentional/intended behavior. And to be fair, I think it makes sense to set a low accuracy by default when you don’t know where the observation comes from.

1 Like

I agree with your reasoning that being conservative is the best approach if necessary, but I don’t think the best approach is to invent a value that did not previously exist; just seems like poor database management to me that a value must be included, almost all databases allow a non-value in that field