This observation has “Location Unknown”, is identified as “Senna roemeriana”.
The “Mark As Reviewed” box is NOT checked:
When reviewing observations identified as genus “Senna” or as species “Senna roemeriana”, this observation is never presented:
I would like to review also the observations with “Location Unknown”, because the pictures are often enough to identify. (In this example, it is worth reviewing because the picture is enough to determine that it is NOT a Senna roemeriana, because the leaf does not match).
In the Filter popup, “Casual” is checked, so that this observation should be included in the review.
This is why I consider this behavior as a bug.
The observation that should be included in the review is as follow:
The observation does not appear in the Identify page (but it should):
The Filters are as follow:
You need to take
verifiable=true out of the search URL.
Welcome to the frustrating nature of how iNat treats captive/cultivated observations, and the reason why many observers don’t set it when they upload their observations! I have been caught by this so many times, hunting in the explore page for an observation I know I made, and it’s not until searching “Your observations”, which sets “verifiable = any”, that I eventually find what I am looking for. Even knowing the problem… verifiable and captive/cultivated just don’t seem to correlate for me!
Indeed, I never understood what “verifiable” could mean, my bad.
I think this “verifiable” should appear in the popup somewhere:
What is the definition of “verifiable”?
Is it related only to a location being defined?
Or more elements?
If it includes several elements, then it is not understandable, the different elements should be separated, in the URL, and in the Filters pop-up.
It it includes only the Location, then better rename it as “located”.
Removing “&verifiable=true” from the URL, I get 59 more pages of Senna observations to review!!!
For instance, I get this observation:
I guess “Not wild” flag is the reason for “not verifiable”?..
OK, let’s go on with the review…
"flagged" would be more understandable that “verifiable”.
And “flagged” (and whatever is in the URL) should be a checkbox in the Filters popup.
A verifiable observation is an observation that:
- has a date
is georeferenced (i.e. has lat/lon coordinates)
- has photos or sounds
- isn’t of a captive or cultivated organism
It does on the Explore page, but not in Identify. I guess you could ask for it to be added to Identify?
Yes, not wild is the reason it’s not verifiable, but to be more precise, it’s not a flag, it’s something from the Data Quality Assessment.
Yes, it would help.
Thanks a lot for the explanations.