This was a change I made last week while trying to find ways to improve performance and reduce load on databases. Fetching counts across large results sets is rather costly (in terms of database resources and response time), so I was looking for places we could eliminate counts. Previously the Identify page would reference all pages in the links at the bottom, even though clicking on anything higher than 333 would result in an error (this is still true when you click on page 334). Given the links were guaranteed to give an error, and that we had total counts in the stats panel on the right, I made a judgement call to allow pages to be limited to 334, but clearly people were using those page counts for reasons other than pagination.
I can restore the page links, though they will still generate errors. I think ideally we can come up with a design that allows users to get the information they need while not generating links to things we know will generate errors. It also seems like at least the folks that have comments here for the most part don’t use or weren’t aware of the slideout stats panel that lists the total number of observations and number of reviewed observations in the current query. If that panel is not widely used, we could save an additional query by not counting the number of observations the current user has reviewed. I won’t make that change, but I am curious to know if people are using it, and if so is the number of reviewed observations helpful.
It sounds like several people want to know the total number of observations in a search and they were using the number of pages to approximate that. If we changed the interface to for example say there are 333 pages accessible, but also included the total count more prominently, would that meet your needs? That way we could at least avoid these page links we know will generate errors.
Are exact counts very important, or could there be some cap, or some rounding. For example if there are more than 100k results, could it say “more than 100k results”? Or if there are 123k results, could it say “there are about 120k results”?
Lastly - is anyone using the total count of reviewed observations we show in the side panel, or is something we could phase out? Sounds like several people didn’t use that panel or perhaps knew it was there.
For now I’ll restore the page links. Thanks and apologies for the unexpected change.