Please fill out the following sections to the best of your ability, it will help us investigate bugs if we have this information at the outset. Screenshots are especially helpful, so please provide those if you can.
Platform (Android, iOS, Website): Website
App version number, if a mobile app issue (shown under Settings or About):
Browser, if a website issue (Firefox, Chrome, etc) : Firefox
I only see observations of 2 species from this link (and only 9 obs. instead of 12, so maybe something is going on and some parts are changing slower than others):
currently, what i see is just 9 observations and 2 species of vireos are pulled up in the link you mentioned. those 9 observations include white eyed, bell’s, and genus-level vireo observations, but no black-capped.
as far as i can tell, the locations of black-capped vireo observations get obscured. so probably what happened is that you identified these as black-capped, and momentarily they showed up in the project, but they get excluded soon after because the obscured locations fall outside the place. so what you captured in your screenshot in the original post is just a temporary inconsistency in the data, not really a bug.
what about location what location those observation has, because I face the same issue, I put location as delhi but when I search for obs from delhi, only some observations come, I think it’s because I didn’t put exact location
Russell, I found Jack Cochran’s BCVI image from June 12, 2021. I suspect the issue in your project arrises because BCVI locations are obscured automatically by iNat. I don’t know if that obscuration is a one-time placement or if the obscuration differs any/every time one searches for the species (or displays a project). So it’s like a quantum physics: That BCVI is both present and absent at Timberlake!
i thought about this a little more, and what may be happening is that you’re a curator in the TBFS project, and others have allowed you to see the obscured observations in that project. so you’re able to see the obscured observations that fall within the project, but the species count (and probably identifiers and observers, too) is determined as if you’re just a regular person who is unable to see the obscured observations.
so i guess if that’s what’s happening, i suppose that could be considered a minor bug.
Yes, I think this is what’s happening. The problem resulting from this is that we can’t see that the species has been documented at the field station without already knowing that it has been documented and then searching for it specifically. And we don’t know if there are other species which have been documented but are not showing up in the species list.
They’re obscured because they were listed as endangered (no longer, but near threatened now). But observers have trusted the project with coordinates, so to me (project manager) they should show up amongst the species documented (because I can still see them amongst the observations). It’s been like this for over a week, so it’s not a momentary thing.
I agree, pretty sure this is what’s going on. I’ll add it to my report this week.
If the accuracy is not recorded it should still show up as being in a place (as long as it’s not obscured). Observations without any accuracy data aren’t covered by that rule.
Following up on this, when I do an export, the species are included in the spreadsheet. They’re just not included in the observations or species count…except for the preview panel (shown above with the red lines).
that particular page gets data without doing any user authentication by design (for simplicity). to the extent that it is not returning results which you should have access to by the rules of the system, it is a limitation of the third party tool.
it is possible to make authenticated API requests on your own though, and doing so should return results similar to what the iNat site would return.
The missing species is being included now, so something has changed. The species still shows the status to be obscured, so that wouldn’t have caused the change.
