# Skipping records in "Identify"

**URL:** <https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/skipping-records-in-identify/7496>\
**Category:** Bug Reports\
**Created:** [October 25, 2019, 2:56pm UTC](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/skipping-records-in-identify/7496 "2019-10-25T14:56:30Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sedgequeen](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.inaturalist.org/sedgequeen/32/1928_2.png) [@sedgequeen](https://forum.inaturalist.org/u/sedgequeen)\
**Post date:** [October 25, 2019, 2:56pm UTC](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/skipping-records-in-identify/7496/1 "2019-10-25T14:56:30Z")

</div>

Last evening I decided to check identifications of observations labeled “Carex leptalea,” both “needs ID” and “Research Grade.” I use a Lenovo desktop computer, use Windows, but visit the internet using Mozilla Firefox. There were 9 pages of observations, so between 240 and 270. I could do this. I used “Identify” to check them. Mostly very identifiable photos and mostly correct. I used “Skip to next page” to move from one page to the next. I reached the end. It took less time than I expected, but it felt good to be done. Except . . .

There were still five pages of observations, though I was at the end of the last. Could I really have left almost (5 x 30 =) 150 in the “not reviewed” state? No, I had not. I went back to page 1 and methodically identified the observations, using “skip to next page” when I reach the end of each page. Done at last! Except . . .

There were still three pages left. I methodically identified them – you get the picture. After four or five iterations there were no pages left (although I think there should have been, since I left a few not “reviewed”). Frustrating. Frustrating to reach the end and not be done.

I doubt this is a bug that can be fixed, but it is annoying.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jwidness](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9d8465/32.png) [@jwidness](https://forum.inaturalist.org/u/jwidness)\
**Post date:** [October 25, 2019, 3:03pm UTC](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/skipping-records-in-identify/7496/2 "2019-10-25T15:03:48Z")

</div>

See discussion here: [https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/improve-flow-of-identify-mode/299](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/improve-flow-of-identify-mode/299)  
Not technically a bug, though I agree it’s not exactly intuitive.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sedgequeen](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.inaturalist.org/sedgequeen/32/1928_2.png) [@sedgequeen](https://forum.inaturalist.org/u/sedgequeen)\
**Post date:** [October 25, 2019, 6:52pm UTC](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/skipping-records-in-identify/7496/3 "2019-10-25T18:52:47Z")

</div>

Thanks. I understand more about why it happens now. I have occasionally used the option of starting my review at the last page – that works well.

Some options discussed there don’t work well for me because I mentally divide observations into three groups – those I provide an identification for, those I don’t ID but click “reviewed” for because in some way they’re not worth seeing again, and some that I don’t ID and don’t labeled “reviewed” because I think they’re probably identifiable but I don’t know enough now to identify them and I want to come back and see them again later.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bouteloua](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.inaturalist.org/bouteloua/32/1180_2.png) [@bouteloua](https://forum.inaturalist.org/u/bouteloua)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2019, 3:24am UTC](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/skipping-records-in-identify/7496/4 "2019-10-31T03:24:00Z")

</div>