I’m trying to make a project to find unIDed moths, and I’m trying to filter by ‘Lepidoptera’, which is coming up blank.
Is iSpot not clever enough to filter by higher taxa then, unless someone has actually literally IDed their moth as ‘Lepidoptera’?
Yes, I have done dozens of the High level Lepidopera IDs in recent times which have been Grouped Other Organisms. It is a fault with the Dictionary with a few of the HighTax names - Pisces is another.
The Species browser finds 68874 Observations https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/species-dictionary/NBNSYS0000160231/insecta
Keep Lepidoptera in the scientific name
Add Common names Butterfly (if you want them)
Add Common name Moth.
Take out the Group
Remove the Tags
Try all those things one at a time
There may be other issues - I’m watching…
Also try redrawing the polygon - just test any area to see how you are doing.
Test for Geometridae say in Scientific name - just to see if a new Poly works.
It’s all very forgiving and easy to change
HA! Dare I suggest there are NO UN-IDd Lepidoptrums?
It doesn’t look as though you can avoid butterflies. I am REALLY surprised there appears to be no UN IDd ones!
I was going to make a comment about insufficient abstraction (you can set up filtering by Lepidoptera from Your iSpot|Filters, but not for a project), which is, I believe, an issue with the design of iSpot. But as observed above a filter for Lepidoptera without likely IDs comes up blank.
This need not be because there are no unidentified moths. If a moth is unidentified there’s nothing to tell iSpot it’s a moth rather than a bee, beetle, bug or bivalve. This goes back to the early decision to use a small and simplistic group of categories, rather than a longer list, or an ability to drill down the taxonomic hierarchy. (The latter would result in novices miscategorising bugs as beetles, and hoverflies as wasps.)
You know that’s all a bit of idiocy on my part - of course you can’t search for unIDed Lepidoptera, because if they’re unIDed there is no ID at all!
It would be useful I suppose if people put the highest taxon they could get to - even if it’s Phylum (or even Kingdom!). It’s not something I do when I don’t know ID though and my start.
Yes, if there is no Taxonomy tree, then a search will not find Leps even. The TaxTree only comes with an ID
Mike solved ‘your’ problem here https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/view/project/758615/butterflies-and-moths-of-the-world-without-likely-id
My Test project (just for you Pete) lists all Obs (near your home) regardless of ID status. If you view that project via the Observation List, you will see EACH ID Status. But if there is no tax tree, then NO IDers will be absent - simples!
I will delete the test in the next hour.
One has to ask why IS there a Filter for No ID?
Well, it’s because you CAN search a Group (Inverts say) for the UN-IDd. That’s what LvTg says in his second Para.
I do tend to put a high level identification on something if I can (e.g. lepidoptera if that is all I could say) but usually hold off doing it for a while since doing so removes the entry from the unidentified carousel and so may well reduce the chance of it being seen and identified by someone who knows what they are doing.
I think that’s fair but have you seen how high the ensuing pile of Help with Unidentified is?
And note the number of emerging Projects that are seeking out the UnIDd?
We have been working for weeks, months really, to help rid the site of the unidentified - it is a tiresome process…
ID a difficult bird as an Aves gets it seen in all Other Observation (of Birds): Insecta SHOULD get them seen in all Other Insects (but doesn’t).
IDing a difficult moth to ANY Genus will get it seen in all Other Obs (of that Genus) and then will be in the face of anyone looking at that Genus - it may be the only way to get it seen outside a project, which itself disappears from view and minds very quickly.
To be honest, if not brutal, I think we should rid ourselves of the Unidentified as soon as possible - there are still probably thousands where the User has left, where they are the ONLY post of the User and which have not been viewed for years.
We should train (warn?) Users to follow up on their Unidentified or lose the post.
What HAVE I said?