I see, of course, that they remain IN the project. We are looking for those with 2 or more IDs.
If you click List then those ones can be seen
I am on the case already but read my comment in https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/view/observation/645226/wild-plant-with-nettle-like-flowers. if needed you can respond there, I’ll read it.
PS all’s well that ends well - Likely has migrated
I have added an explanatory note to your comment for 645226 - but yes, all the observations that might need someone else to bounce the ‘Likely ID’ to where it should actually be are still in the project because the project parameters seek to pick up all Symphytums (not just those without Likely ID). I think your idea of looking at those with 2 or more identifications should pick up the problem ones; otherwise I can post a list sometime.
That’s fine - I feel very supportive and I have responded.
Now look at this - the very same issue
I suggest we need to trust experts but weigh that trust against our own experience and conscience.
I was going to look at this eyebright post, but when I click on the link, all it shows me is the location. Is that the point you are making or am I clicking in the wrong place?
John The link take me to the post. It has two IDs, one safe, the other by the Nation’s expert. Read my comment in the post. It relates to much that has been said in the last few posts above
ð
I’ve seen it now. But I don’t know what the solution is. Like you, I don’t like to give an agreement just to offer support to someone if it isn’t an identification I could do myself.
It’s a problem. There is no way that Chris would offer the ID unless he was confident (and he has stated that he is as sure as he can be). We either need people to remove their agreement to the previous ID or adopt the new one - and like you, I don’t feel comfortable in agreeing the new one, even though I am certain Chris is correct - because I can’t do Euphrasias
And I’ve never liked the phrase “I’m as sure as I can be” in this context. Whenever I put an id in, I’m as sure as I can be, even if I am only making an informed guess. I’d rather the strongest level of id was “I’m certain”.
1 Like
I’ve been working through the project Invertebrates without a likely id., got about 5 pages in, identified a reed beetle, then used the back arrow to return to the page of observations. Except its taken me back to page 1, and each page takes about 10 seconds to load. How do I go back to where I was before I did the reed beetle id?
When opening an observation, right click, and select “open in new tab”, or “open in new window”.
A known irritation John. Open each Observation in a new window; when you’ve done, close that window and the original page is still open. I do that with a mouse left click holding Shift. It’s easy to get lost if you open too many windows - one at a time I suggest.
LvtGs suggestion is cool - I was typing when his came in - I am so slow!
I removed my agreement from the original, and that was enough (in addition to an earlier removal) to tip it.
You did and I think it a fair conclusion. Not so easy with the Euphrasia tho’!
I (and I think JoP) were referring to the Euphrasia.
You were, sorry. But it’s sort of unsatisfactory. Jo has not commented there and your removal has no effect,
I have supported the safe option (alt is really not being certain). My keying using a photo is not good enough. It IS an Eyebright.
Why not just leave this sinking ship? Ispotnature has never been good as it has always been a pain to use, way too slow etc. Also, the concept just does not work. There has to be a specialist around for a final validation of the observations, if not, you end up with a website full of wrongly ID’ed pictures, which of course is completely counterproductive. But at this moment, using ispotnature is even worse than being in hell.
If I were of the Southern African community, I’d try observado.org (you can even set the language to Afrikaans, there exists an app for phone, tablet etc.) for a while and if it pleases (and it will, because it is infinitely better and more user friendly than ispotnature or inaturalist) go and have a talk to the folks at observado.org.
And you’ll have forgotten that ispotnature ever existed in no time. I really do not understand why people indulge in such self-torture.
Sorry mate, but honestly, that attitude is very depressing and quite frankly, toxic!
You mean to say that after 7 years of contributions and hard work, we should all just throw in the towel and turn our backs on all the effort each and every user put in to grow the iSpot database to where it is now? (asides from the fact that we’re also growing our own knowledge)
I won’t, and I hope I’m not the only one…
1 Like
with you there . . .
I believe Cicuta is struggling to access the system at all - but Tim Rich is just very very busy this summer. A couple of vice county recorders are still using it. I am in the process of persuading some of the national referees for the more difficult taxa to help with verification once plants have been sorted into Projects, and once the Symphytum referee has finished those I am going to nag him until he does Atriplex (he likes them, for some reason). Some of the rest of us are only a little shy of VCR standard, if not there already - yourself for example, Tiggrx, PeachySteve etc etc. I did have a look at some of the other options, but even in its present state it is a lot more user-friendly, to my mind. For what I need it for (self-improvement and help with the occasional ID), it works well enough - or at least it will when the track/changes function is fixed.
1 Like
Jo, since the rewrite, it is not possible to access ispotnature via chrome webbrowser on many a PC. Maybe that is Cicuta’s problem.