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
1 Like
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 introduced=true:
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.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
I definitely checked for Limax maximus – nothing except introduced.
2 Likes
I just checked a few others, and not the case for those ones at least
1 Like
Is there a way to search for photographs by a specific person on a specific date? Thanks!
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.
As far as I’m aware, once you do this, they’re gone, and you would have to get them back from the original folder on your computer
1 Like
there’s not a great way to find the photo pages for orphaned photos other than by brute force, which means that if you know the id of the photo page for a photo that was added before or after, the orphaned photo’s photo page id should be somewhat larger or smaller, respectively. so you could just increment the photo page id until you find the one you’re looking for.
that said, once you find it, there’s not a great way to reattach it to your observation. also, the orphaned photo will eventually get deleted from the system. (i forget exactly what the schedule for deletion is. maybe a week or so.) also, if the only observation associated with the photo gets deleted, that may cause the photo to be deleted right away, not orphaned, but i’m not sure.
i asked for a feature to find these orphaned photos back in the day, but it hasn’t gone anywhere: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/find-your-own-orphaned-photos-uploaded-to-inaturalist/6610
if you just want the photo file, you might be able to get that file location if the observation was pushed to GBIF but hasn’t been updated sans that photo yet. or if the last AWS open data set recorded the location of that file, you might be able to get the photo location from the AWS open data set’s photo metadata file. you could also try the brute force approach.
5 Likes
Is there a URL filter for the Explore and Identify pages that would show only records with the observer’s ID being a computer vision suggestion, or not being a suggestion?
I don’t know of any way to do this, can’t even find a way in the API (but I’m no API expert).
Even if you could do it, I’m not sure how meaningful the information would be, since use of CV suggestions ranges from blind acceptance by those who have no idea what something is, to a typing shortcut for those who know exactly what something is.
1 Like
What is the url for accuracies? Eg not equal to 0, or greater than 3m, etc? I was given advice on this once but couldnt make it work. Now I am trying again, but cant find the post to refer to. Thanks!
acc is a true/false for whether the observation has an accuracy value, acc_above and acc_below use integers, and the units are meters
e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?acc_above=10000&user_id=kueda for observations over 10km
4 Likes
…and I am delighted to report that this also works in the bulk edit observations page
UPDATE…perhaps not quite…that search seems to include observations with manual accuracy, which often (in some situations or pages?) refuses to accept 0, and results in no accuracy value shown in the obs.
1 Like
this is superb :-)
2 Likes