Ideas for a revamped Explore/Observations Search Page

Hi @fluffyinca,

I also have some search preferences that I would like to be preserved by default, but I did find a work-around: Because the search settings are preserved in the URL, you can bookmark your search results for quick future reference. For example I created a bookmark to show only observations that “Need ID” for the City Nature Challenge project in my area, sorted by oldest first (since most people are looking at the newest).

The benefit of using bookmarks is that you can have a bunch of different searches at the ready, too! (So at least for me, having the search parameters in the URL is actually more helpful than having the last search saved by default.)

Thanks for the suggestion. I’ve heard people mention bookmarking before, but the problem is I don’t actually know how to do it. Do you think you could give me a short description?

This is not the case. Rather, they will not achieve research grade if the community ID is different from their ID. Frequently, these users will change their IDs based on what the community suggests, so adding IDs is definitely helpful. You may also be interested in this feature request:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/search-by-observation-taxon-or-community-taxon/3620

This is also not true. Needs ID also counts.
Screen Shot 2021-05-01 at 11.57.51 AM
Screen Shot 2021-05-01 at 11.58.49 AM
(Not sure why there’s casual observations though.)

The San Diego County project excludes casual obs - regional organizers are given the option to choose whether or not to include them: https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/city-nature-challenge-2021-san-diego-county?tab=about

Not sure why the Join project page for the main CNC project excludes casual, but it’s had other inaccurate/missing information before too (prob vestigial/unupdated from when Collection and Umbrella projects were added to the site).

@miramatt I think this filter would be way more useful on Identify than on Explore actually!

Similar to these other remarks above:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/ideas-for-a-revamped-explore-observations-search-page/8439/4
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/ideas-for-a-revamped-explore-observations-search-page/8439/35

Similar remark:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/ideas-for-a-revamped-explore-observations-search-page/8439/157

I would appreciate it a lot.

1 Like

Proposal : include widely appreciated and commonly used parameters in the identifiers leaderboard. This proposal is expanded from a proposal initially put forward by @bouteloua in this post

Current appearance of the Observations page :
An example of https://www.inaturalist.org/observations page for a taxon (Odonata) is shown here with the identifiers “tab” highlighted underneath:
image

If one clicks on “identifiers” or the arrow on the right of it, a leaderboard appears with only one column, as follows :
image

The proposal
Add checkboxes for commonly used parameters, which will be shown on the page while hovering over the “identifiers” or the arrow on the right of it :
image

If one checks any of these, say “for others”, “disagreeing” and “leading”, the resulting leaderboard would be modified by adding one column, as follows :
image
Hovering over the “?” icon would show the checked parameters. The corresponding results are in the “Filtered identifications” column, whereas the “Total identifications” column would be unchanged. The downward-slanting triangles would sort the leaderboard according to the values in the corresponding column.

Discussion…
This is a sort of “miminum possible combination” of useful parameters. The “disagreeing” parameter is the only one that may still be in an early phase, and I may have missed others worth being included (e.g., annotations see alternative checkbox proposal below).

Currently, it is possible to obtain this kind of results using URLs of at least two types, with different outputs formats. For the “comments+” checkbox, no URL is available as far as I know. Overall the exact URLs to be implemented here need to be discussed.

References
This proposal is a partial answer to concerns from outside this thread (including the one mentioned above, as well as here, here and here, and other threads referenced therein) and from this thread above as follows :

Alternative possibility, further expanded :


The user would enter text in the four additional larger boxes. The first is equivalent to “hrank” (e.g. restricting the observations to those at the species level or finer, by entering “species”). The second is for annotations, perhaps with the possibility to enter them sequentially, separated by commas. The third would be the region of choice according to iNaturalist specifications. And 4th, a date to restrict the search to more recent observations.

Again, other possibilities are conceivable, yet only the most obviously relevant and more widely used should appear. Note that some of these parameters may also be part of the standard filter, which they should modify.

4 Likes