Not entirely clear to me. List the people who most often were first or second to give this species the (community accepted) name? And not everyone who voted later?
The desire is to list all and only the people who suggested an ID of that taxon or some sub-taxon. The current link goes to a page which lists everyone who put an ID on an observation whose community-accepted name is that taxon or lower, even if the ID was more general or straight-out incorrect, which results in some oddities such as people who’re putting general categories on unknown observations ending up high on the lists for a wide variety of rare species, people who are consistently incorrect ending up on the list for the thing they’re having trouble identifying correctly, etc.
I’m interested in who knows how to identify a taxon, not on the most prolific agree-ers out there.
That’s not specified/requested in this feature request (or the above linked previous discussions). I would assume supporting IDs would be included in such a list of identifiers. But I guess that’s up for debate.
linking @tiwane’s comment: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/top-identifier-but-ive-made-no-ids-of-that-taxon/4930/3
OK, after consulting with Ken-ichi, it’s not a bug but intended behavior.
“The Identifiers tab in Obs Search shows the people who have added identifications to observations in the current search, not people who have added identifications of the taxon filtering the current obs search. I am fairly sure that was intentional, as obs search could have multiple filters applied to it that may or may not have anything to do with taxa”
I don’t see how a filter of a taxa could ever not have anything to do with taxa, but if you are going to request this feature, how would you work around this issue?
That is indeed the intended behaviour of the identifiers tab of the observation search/explore page, which is where the link from the taxon page goes now. That page should be left alone. The proposal is to change the link on the taxon page to instead go to a new page which lists the people who made the most identifications of the relevant taxon, which is a function already available through the API, and already (partially) displayed in the top 10 identifiers list in the lower right part of each observation page.
In other words, change the link to go to a new page which actually does what’s expected, instead of linking to an existing page which does something subtly unexpected and can’t be changed.
Once we have a page that is searching the right thing, filters for Maverick, Leading, Supporting, or Improving IDs could be added, which would satisfy a couple of other feature requests.
If one does that (and I very much support it), how does one deal with the fact that users will understandably keep on raising the question as to why the top identifier isn’t appearing on the leader board?
I don’t understand. Why would the top identifier not appear on the leader board? Which page are you thinking of: the existing observations-search or the proposed identifications search?
Edit: Ah, I think I understand now. On the taxon page, when the link is changed, obviously the top identifier must also be changed to the one that’s at the top of the linked page, though most of the time the user at the top of the current page will also be at the top of the new page and will almost always be somewhere on the new page.
it doesn’t really address this feature request, but while this is awaiting development, if you just need something to display the results of the API in a more human readable format, you can use this: https://jumear.github.io/stirfry/iNatAPIv1_identifications_identifiers.html.
so for example, if you want to see the top 100 “leading” identifiers for Amanita (for others’ observations only), you could add some parameters to the above URL like this, just as you would with the API:
the code for the above is here: https://github.com/jumear/stirfry/blob/gh-pages/iNatAPIv1_identifications_identifiers.html.
I apologize to revive this topic about 1 year later. But was the requested feature developed or is it still …
In other terms, is it now true that the taxon page-linked leadeboard for identifiers now shows the same results as the following command
xxxxx being a taxon codenumber.
It does not seem so: if I click on the taxon leaderboard icon, I see that it leads to the following url :
This seems to be the same (plus additional options, most empty) as the initial url that was reported as problematic by @bouteloua
Does that mean that the taxon-associated leaderboard still includes maverick identifiers and identifiers that suggested taxon levels higher than xxxxx (genus, kingdom … if xxxxx is a species), in short anyone that proposed any kind of identification equal or different or larger than xxxxx ?
Many thanks for your help.
NB : in fact the maverick IDs can be excluded by adding the option
and this should be done by default, which is not the case, but then the request was to restrict the IDs to those equal to the taxon of interest (or a lower taxon level within that taxon)
The page linked to hasn’t yet been changed - it still goes to the list of people who have added any ID to an observation with that community taxon (or a more specific taxon), instead of a list of people who have added IDs of that taxon (or a more specific taxon).
On the other hand, it looks as though the top identifier listed on the taxon page, and the number of identifications they made, is now calculated correctly. So it’s often showing a different number than the leader on the linked page, and sometimes a different leader.
If so, why then should we have two different definitions of identifiers ?
My understanding of this post by @JeremyHussell, is that the “top identifier” number in an example taxon page like the first screenshot next, as pointed by the red arrow, is identical to that obtained in the following url :
whereas the identifiers’ leaderboard (yellow arrow) gives a different number (second screenshot next)? (60 vs 56)
This second url can be shortened to https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?taxon_id=98413&view=identifiers
Not only these numbers are different but, as far as I understand, the red arrow says what the identifier said, whereas the yellow arrow says what taxon the identifier was looking at !
Clearly a choice should be made, and the red arrow calculation is much more meaningful, notably if we want to know if the identifier was right.
Once this choice is made, there are a couple of additional improvements ahead. But I think we need a first choice in terms of consistency.
I hope this helps.
In two sentences, the taxon page-associated, identifiers’ leaderboard that is pointed by the yellow arrow above should generate the following table :
https://jumear.github.io/stirfry/iNatAPIv1_identifications_identifiers.html?taxon_id=98413&own_observation=false (notably its columns “rank”, “login id”, “ids”) (example for taxon 98413)
instead of the table currently associated with it :
Is that possible ?
This is my first question.
A second question I would like to ask, as a possible improvement, is best explained in the very next post #16.
( for the sake of simplicity I have removed the first variant of it, which was included in this post ; indeed it introduced a somewhat too visible and debatable modification of the taxa web page).
This is my second question, based on another example (screenshot) :
I would propose to add an “overlays” icon next to the “top identifier” (or any other icon that would allow to click options), as shown in the following maquette :
Clicking on that icon would show what follows :
As explained in the previous post, the page now shows the top identifier taken from this table :
whereas the current top identifier definition, as represented in the first, unmodified screenshot, comes from this table :
In this case, one can see that there is absolutely no overlap between the 5 top identifiers as currently defined and the 5 top identifiers defined by the leading/improving categories including own observations. And anyone could choose his/her way of defining a top identifier.
Of course, the leaderboard would open the corresponding tables.
I hope this proposal is an … improvement.
This display (whatever it could actually mean) is counterintuitive and incomprehensible (in short, it is inconsistent, forgive me):
This is my question 1 (post #15), which (as far as I understand !) is the same as @bouteloua’s initial question for this topic. Presently indeed, if you click the leaderboard under the “top identifier” on the https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/ page (like your https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/62900-Brugmansia) your are led to the kind of results that you just found :
which usually gives a different top identifier (and inconsistent leaderboard) compared to the taxa page for the reasons discussed in the very first posts : yes, the taxa page identifiers are differnent from the observations page identifiers and @bouteloua started this topic here to ask to correct for this inconsistency.
To do so, it helps to realize that the “top identifier” of the taxa page, along with the full corresponding leaderboard, can be obtained with this kind of url :
You will find here that the top identifier is the same as shown in the taxa page.
The leaderboard icon from the taxa page should not link to the observations page associated leaderboard. In fact (see above) in the observations page the so-called identifiers should rather be termed something like “all people involved in the identification process” (with correct or incorrect, vague or precise IDs).
It is critical to realize that there is such an inconsistency, as you also do, and the first step is to correct it.
Yes, this explains what we see.
Functionaly, I don’t need (do you?) to know the people [most] involved in the whole identification process. I need to know how has proposed this taxon (or any other one at a lower rank) as an ID. This is the initial feature request, if I understand correctly.
As an inconsistency with the linked leaderboard, I would consider it also as a bug.
Because all information needed is already available (already computed for the leaderboard page), and because the fix consists “only” in changing an identifier and a count in the Taxon page, I don’t understand why it is not fixed after a year.
Of course it might not be prioritary, but as a bug I suggest that it need no further discussion (or votes).
Maybe it is not fixed yet because this change request is registered as a feature request, instead of a bug.