Too few observations fall within place - Pichincha

web
#1

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=29896&subview=grid

Pichincha is the name of an important province in Ecuador. I have included a link (above) to my explore search with just the province name in the locality box. Instead of 10s of thousands of observations, there are 8. This is a serious glitch. Can I get help to resolve this bug?

1 Like

About the Bug Reports category
#2

Hi @rudygelis, I moved your report to its own topic.

It looks like you selected a different Pichincha in the Places filter (Pichincha canton in Manabí province. vs. Pichincha province). Did you mean to select this one?

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=10011&verifiable=any

I see 28,500 observations for Pichincha province.

1 Like

#3

thanks for the reply; can you do the following? go to explore, and in the location box type the word ‘pichincha’. when i type this word, none of the options which drop down are the Pichincha Province.

0 Likes

#4

for example: I go to explore, and type Napo in the location box. Immediately available in the Napo Province of Ecuador. When I type in Pichincha, the first option I get is a dinky little town in the Manabi province, followed by 4 other options which are not Pichincha province.

0 Likes

#5

I type California in the explore location box and the first option is California USA. Good.

I type Pichincha in the explore location box and the first option is a dinky little town in Manabi.

0 Likes

#6

maybe you are using the app? I am using my laptop and never the app. For example, when I open inaturalist, ‘places’ (that you mention in your reply) is not an option after I select explore. When I go to explore, the 2 options with boxes are ‘species’ and ‘location’. I go to location box, and start typing Pichincha. The province is not offered as an option.

0 Likes

#7

‘places’ must be the app version of ‘location’ for laptops.

0 Likes

#8

Here’s where to choose Pichincha province:

0 Likes

#9

yes, I can find the data that way. so, with the searching method I use (which I have always used, since I started about a year ago), using the location box does not work for pichincha, but works for most provinces, states, etc (I checked). It must be a change made in the last few months with iNat. programming. At any rate, Pichincha (the province) is not available as an location option. Your method, with the filter, is an additional two steps which is easy (I can do it and already did). Anyone who goes to explore, searching only location Pichincha (not using filters), will not find the province.

0 Likes

#10

for me this is not a big deal; Ecuadorians do not use iNat much, but the easier it is to use, the better. For anyone searching ‘explore’ and inserting where ever in the world for ‘location’ and not getting any results for our most populous province probably won’t make much of a difference anyway, since there are so few users here. there is supposed to be a team from iNat. in California coming to Ecuador in April to go the Amazon with local biologists who are just learning how to use iNaturalist and I thought I would point out how using ‘location’ for Pichincha province doesn’t work, but figuring out that probably isn’t worth the time and is probably insignificant in the long run anyway. sorry for the trouble.

0 Likes

#11

No trouble at all, it’s a very, very common point of confusion that the Google “Location” search can show unexpected results.

I’m not sure if the site developers are able to “re-map” the relationships between these Google Locations and iNat Places, but it would be an example to fix. See also the concurrent thread with Niger vs. Nigeria.
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/niger-vs-nigeria-on-explore-map/982/12

0 Likes

#12

that Niger/Nigeria problem seems very similar to my issues. The location and places are not ideal, but hey, something to work on among the millions of other things. thanks for the link, all help is appreciated. cheers from ecuador

2 Likes

closed #13
0 Likes