Hello, here is a odd issue that I encountered:
On the project Wild Orchids of Western Palearctic, the top observer by number of species are:
Yet if I click on People
and sort by number of species I obtain this result:
Why am I excluded from the top observers?
Did you add those last few species recently? Sometimes it takes several hours for the servers to update/refresh all the stats for pages like this.
No, I should have been in the top contributor by number of species for years.
i see the project page making only a single API call to get the top 200 observers (which would sort by default based on observation count). so i assume that means that the list of observers with most species displayed on that page is a subset of only these 200 observers with the most observations (rather than all observers in the project).
in your case, although you have a lot of species, you’re only 302nd on the list of top observers. since you’re not in the top 200, you get excluded from both lists on that page.
ideally, the page would make 2 separate calls to get the top 5 observers by each criterion, but that may not have been an option back when this page was created. (it seems to be one of the very old pages in the system.) so maybe they made the assumption that getting the top 200 by observation count would allow them to get both lists right 99% of the time?
It makes perfect sense, thank you!
i looked at the code, and it looks like the top observers by species list probably used to work as expected, but a recent change to the page introduced the problem. it looks like the intent of the change was to make fewer API calls, but i wonder if instead of making 1 API call to return 200 records, it could have been just as or even more efficient to make 2 API calls to return 2 x 5 = 10 records?
@pleary will probably be the one who would have to say whether the new behavior that sacrifices accuracy for performance is the best solution.