There is no way to do this directly through an observation search. The only way to find identifications of an inactive taxon is via an identification search, from which you can link to the affected observations one at a time. Use
and substitute the taxon_id number with the number of the inactive taxon. To see that number, you may need to go to the taxon change record that inactivated it, and hover over the link to the inactivated taxon.
Oh that’s super disappointing! The opposite of taxon_id= and ident_user_id= is without_taxon_id= and without_ident_user_id= but then the opposite of place_id= is NOT without_place_id=
I assume there is no direct way to search for observations where the ‘Based on the evidence, can the Community Taxon still be confirmed or improved’-box is ticked as YES?
But would there be a way around to search for observations that would normally be RG, if not for this box activated?
I am thinking of something like the amount or ratio of supporting IDs at species level
The two lists are one of protected species, and another of invasive species but I want volunteers to have a view of the two combined for our project so the can prioritize both.
digging further into this, the introduced species that still show are only a small % of the ones actually observed for Australia. No clue why these are somehow still being included in this search when they’re listed as introduced for the entire country, not just a few states
If I click on the 140, I can go to a few of the observations listed and manually re-index them, then the search will show fewer introduced=false Limax maximus observations.
FWIW we can’t find any records of the establishment means for this taxon in the Australia checklist being changed (our logs go back 30ish days). Will add to my weekly report.
Have you checked all of the places containing one of these observations, to make sure none of the smaller places within Australia happen to have a different establishment means set for the species? Sounds like it would be incorrect if so, but that might account for the unexpected results.
I actually meant to search for photographs independent of observations. I think I left some orphaned photographs, unless iNat automatically removes them when the last link to them is removed. It’s from observations where I deleted individual photos that were either unhelpful or not applicable.
They were attached to an observation at one time but were removed from that observation, although the observation remains. Some are duplicate photos from duplicate observations that got deleted, but maybe iNat cleans those up for itself. Do you know if it does?
The idea started when I found a photo of an unrelated organism mixed into observation A and unchecked the box to remove it from the observation. Then I realized I didn’t have that photo in observation B that actually reported that organism. Oops. I wanted that photo back because it showed an diagnostic characteristic but didn’t want to dredge thru my zillions of photos hoping I hadn’t deleted it after putting it in iNat (I sometimes do that with bad photos that none-the-less show something important. I figured if I could see all the photos I created on a specific day, I could find it a lot easier. And then my curiosity was piqued, so I’m asking for next time.
