Page backwards as well as forwards in Identify

Platform(s): website

URLs (aka web addresses) of any pages, if relevant: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify

Description of need:
Ease of use of Identify view. When using Identify to review a batch of observations, navigating between observations using the next buttons, when you get to the end of the page you are asked if you want to proceed to the next page. But adding identifications to observations may have knocked them out of the filtering criteria. This has the result that some observations (those that were at the start of the next page) are skipped over.

Feature request details:
This can be addressed by starting at the last page, and working back from the last observation using the previous button. This results in clicking the previous button several times until one realises that it isn’t working, closing down the observation view, and then manually picking the previous page. It would be nice if things worked the same way in both directions.

There is an existing feature request for this: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/add-a-go-to-previous-page-button-in-identify/59131
(though it seemed to generate some puzzlement about why one would need or want to work through Identify backwards)

Do people either review everything on a page or not realise that just moving forward a page misses however many observations you did review? I’d love not to need to work backwards to catch everything (well, as long as no new observations are added to mess things up the other way!), but I can’t really see any other options unless you could ‘freeze’ a search somehow until you refreshed rather than merely switching between pages.

(Having said that, I’m perfectly happy with moving between pages using the page numbers and don’t feel the need for a specific button.)

Yes, please, although I would amend the request slightly. I almost always work backwards from page to page for this reason and often have 100 per page. Although, I usually work forwards through each page, so I get to the end and I know it’s the end because I am asked if I want to move onto the next page. The answer is ‘no I want to move on to the previous page’, so I have to close the pop up, scroll to the bottom of the page and click ‘previous’. It would be great if the pop up appeared at both ends, and if it gave you the option of ‘next or previous’ either way.

@spiphany I think your request was slightly different. What I am saying here combines both. I had not spotted yours before, but I have voted for it now!

This has been SOP for me for years. As far as I can tell, it’s necessary if you want to be methodical.

(I should qualify that - you can set your filters in such a way that observations don’t vanish from your view as you work either forward or backward)

I think a Feature Request to “freeze” a set of Identify pages until the user refreshes the search would be VERY useful. Going back and forth through a set of Identify pages shouldn’t auto-refresh; this has been very confusing for a long time.

I “mark all as reviewed” on a page I’m reviewing, then click “view more” when I get to the end of the page. I don’t think I’ve ever used the “skip to next page” button. Nothing ever gets missed this way, as you’re just perpetually re-loading the first page with the previous first-page-observations eliminated. I thought this was the way most people did IDing- is there a reason to not mark a page as reviewed once you’ve looked through it? I would think that solves the issue described here.

It depends on what “reviewed” means in your work flow. As I’ve lamented many times, iNat lacks adequate tools for tracking work queues (unless you rigidly follow the stereotypical work flow you describe). As soon as you try to do something slightly different, you find you have to deploy various hacks to get around the shortcomings. “reviewed” may mean something different in your world.

In the past, I used “reviewed” in an idiosyncratic way, and that required that I work backwards through a queue. The new metadata tool allows me to change my work flow so that “reviewed” now means what it does for most people (presumably). My current standard work flow is as follows:

I look over a page and ID the ones that need an explicit ID either because I’m refining or correcting the ID, and I click “reviewed” for those that I do not want to ID for whatever reason. I then click reload and apply “agreement” in bulk to the remaining observations. This saves me the trouble of clicking agree multiple times on a page (and having to wait for each action to complete - the bulk agreement is relatively quick by comparison). This doesn’t work well unless you work backwards through a multipage queue.

Come to think of it, I will still be using my old work flow for one particular species, but that won’t be until closer to the end of the year when I review all those observations in bulk.

I’ve only felt the “wish” for the feature described here while doing a massive review of historical observations, where I am reviewing several thousand observations for a given year. I was working backwards reflexively from years of doing that. After wishing for the “previous page” button several times, I realized that for the work I was doing in that review, I didn’t need to work backwards (the ID pages were showing observations that I had previously identified and/or marked as reviewed), so going fowards/backward/reloading was always showing the same set of observations. So then, for that review, I stared working forward.

Even though I don’t think I need this button in my current work flow, I have voted for the feature because I may need it at some unforeseeable point in the future, and I sympathize with identifiers who may be using the website in idiosyncratic ways.

I’m treating “reviewed” as a rough proxy to identified to species by me. Inter alia, I’ve been going through observations at genus or tribe level. Some get identified to species; some get moved out of the genus (sometimes all the way up to dicot); others get left behind at genus without adding an identification. The last are left at unreviewed so that can potentially be looked at again at a later date.

I’ve used “reviewed” as a filter on Explore as a proxy for my identifications. There doesn’t seem to be an easy means of using the Explore or Identify views on the identifications that you’ve made; filtering for “reviewed” is the best I’ve found. If it meant observations I’ve looked at it would be less useful.

For me at least, definitely. I look at plenty of observations that I’m not confident to ID now but I hope/expect to be able to ID at some point in the future. If I marked them all identified, it would make it much harder to ever find them again. As it is, I have lots of old ones I added a high-level ID to and left as reviewed but would now return to unreviewed because I expect to be able to take them further in future. Over time I’m trying to go through those old ‘reviewed’ ones to either improve or ‘unreview’, but it takes time and there’s always more coming in…

You can search for ones you’ve identified (as distinct from ‘marked reviewed’) using the “ident_user_ID=username” function. You can then combine that with reviewed = yes, no or any.

Could you clarify please. How exactly do I do what.

Have a look through these two forum posts to see how to add extra parameters to URLs:

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/how-to-use-inaturalists-search-urls-wiki-part-1-of-2/63

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/how-to-use-inaturalists-search-urls-wiki-part-2-of-2/18792

I would prefer something of this sort as well, but I imagine it would be rather complex to implement.

Whereas adding a button would not require changing the underlying sorting mechanisms but merely provide another way to access existing functionality. So my idea was that it would be a quick and easy fix to make things a bit more convenient for users until such a time as a better solution might be found.

Having a button would regularly save me a few clicks.

For most of my activities in Identify I need to see the entire observation (larger photos, observation metadata, existing comments and IDs, annotations tab) so I am almost always working from the pop-up window and not from the thumbnail view. Meaning that if I finish a page and want to page back, I currently have to close the pop-up window, potentially scroll down to the bottom of the page to click on the number of the previous page, and then open the pop-up window again.

If, on the other hand, I want to page forward, all I have to do is click on the “next” button that is displayed when I have finished the page (except that this results in the aforementioned shifting of observations when I have not reviewed everything; given that I rarely review everything, I generally follow workflows that do not involve this button).

So the change would create button parity by easily enabling both actions for people whose workflows make it desirable to page back at least occasionally.

The gain is, admittedly not huge, but the development effort required to add such a button should also be fairly small, so the outlay seems proportionate.

There are lots of reasons why one might not clear the page after looking at all the observations on it. A big one is that for the sort of IDing I do, there is typically some portion of observations I am not skilled enough to ID now but I might want to look at in the future. Or I may be going through checking something like observations with IDs not expected nearby and only adding IDs to the ones that are wrong and leaving the false positives unreviewed.

Another reason I use Identify is for adding annotations; while adding annotations removes observations from the set (similar to marking “reviewed”), there are usually a few observations that can’t be annotated and so don’t get cleared out when I go to the next page, creating the same problem outlined above and making it convenient to work backwards from a high page number.

Ah, yes, I missed the difference between this request and mine, probably because the left->right and top->bottom reading order is so ingrained it would not have occurred to me to start at the bottom of the page.

But putting both buttons in both places would seem to be an ideal solution that would cover most if not all ways of navigating through the page.

Ah. It’s “ident_user_id”, not “ident_user_ID”. Now working, except that the browser autocorrect is contaminated with the upper case version - worked round by adding a comma to the end.

I assume you meant marked them all as reviewed, rather than identified. If so, you can easily find observations that you’ve reviewed but did not add an identification to by using the without_ident_user_id url parameter, e.g.:

Using random sorting removes the pagination, so there’s no longer any backwards or forwards. Anything not marked as reviewed just goes back in the bag of things to do, and will randomly reappear later. Alternatively, marking everything as reviewed guarantees that the bag eventually becomes empty. (If necessary, without_ident_user_id can be used for later re-reviewing).

I would add a vote for this request but I am out of votes :(

As I explained in the other feature request, sorting randomly is not a suitable workflow for everyone and all purposes.

If one does not ID/review everything on the page, one inevitably gets some observations that appear repeatedly, and some that do not appear at all. Unless one’s workflow is such that one reviews most observations on each page and eventually the pile will be reduced to close to zero (this is not my workflow), it is not a substitute for or in any way equivalent to going through the list systematically.

Well, it’s good to know we’re on the same page, since you clearly agree that it is suitable for some people and some purposes :wink:

grampianshiker explicitly asked whether there was an alternative to backwards reviewing, and the workflow I suggested does offer an alternative way to go through an entire list systematically. I suppose people can decide for themselves whether that sort of approach can be adapted to their own needs.

The main reason for considering this approach at all is that it’s available right now. The earlier feature request is nearly two years old, and there’s no clear indication as to when it will be implemented (if ever). In the meantime, it seems helpful to point out any possible work-arounds, since some people may find them useful.

None of this speaks against the feature request in any way. If it’s relatively easy to implement and some people find it useful, then why not? I guess the only people who can ever meaningfully answer this are the developers.

I find an even earlier go round on the topic.

Improve Flow of Identify Mode - Feature Requests - iNaturalist Community Forum