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.
Thanks. That will work fine if needed.
Just curious, the result page has a link “View with test=idcats”, how is this different from the normal “View”?
Sorry, think I knew the answer once, but have forgotten. Hopefully someone else can chime in.
Some vestigial code from when they introduced the concepts of IDs being “Leading”, “Improving”, “Supporting”, or “Maverick”.
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=
There is a pretty even mix of both exclusion prefixes. They are all compiled here for handy reference:
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
Is there a way to search for multiple list_id. this the link I’m trying to achieve. It works for either of the lists, but not both.
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.
something odd going on with this filter?
If I search for land snails and slugs in Australia, and set it to introduced = false (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?hrank=species&introduced=false&place_id=6744&taxon_id=47485&view=species), it only removes some introduced stuff, e.g. garden snail. That link fails to omit 13 different species that are labelled on iNat as introduced to Australia
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
I think it’s the same re-indexing issue from https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/about-the-field-introduced/6091. As an example, Limax maximus currently shows 140 observations when
introduced=false is in the search.
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.
You can also see that the majority of Limax maximus observations in Australia come back under
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?introduced=true&place_id=6744&taxon_id=62470 returns 282 results while https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?introduced=false&place_id=6744&taxon_id=62470 returns 136 results.
If the establishment means weren’t changed recently, then I think this should be reported as a bug.
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 definitely checked for Limax maximus – nothing except introduced.
I just checked a few others, and not the case for those ones at least
Is there a way to search for photographs by a specific person on a specific date? Thanks!
On the explore tab, use these filters
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.
Not sure what you mean by this. All photos on iNat are associated with an observation; there are no photos that exist without being attached to one
EDIT well seems like I’m wrong, disregard this comment
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.