Search Ispot for ID

Just entered Eyed Ladybird for confirmation,got umpteen answers in point whatever of a second none relevant.Useless.

You might need to be more specific as to the complaint.

I’ve just tried putting eyed ladybird into the search, and it comes up with 21 results (most of which admittedly are irrelevant), but the first one is the dictionary entry for Anatis ocellata, and if you follow that you get a list of observations of that species.

If you put quotes round eyed ladybird it reduces the return to 3 results. One does wonder why it’s missing most of the observations. I seem to recall mutterings about 1) outsourcing the search to Google, and 2) Google not indexing a lot of the site.

Assuming one knows the Latin name then you can get results.That’s most intuitive as I suspect most of Ispot users don’t know the Latin names.As for being more specific about my comment I don’t see how I can be.Any way thanks for your help on plant IDs.

Latin names are easy - ask Mr Google.
the Species Dictionary is the place to go https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/species-dictionary/NHMSYS0020151247/anatis and follow the links.
However, it is often frustrating trying to be specific via the iSpot Search.
Your Ob is already in a Google Images search https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Eyed+Ladybird&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwisq7DmusvaAhUhCMAKHXLIBQgQ_AUoAXoECAAQAw&biw=1920&bih=959#imgrc=YGDgWSs70gl4CM: (one hpour ago, it says!) Remarkable[quote=“lavateraguy, post:2, topic:540”]
Google not indexing a lot of the site_.[ha!]_
[/quote]

SEARCHING
…is often worse than useless. It is still heavily loaded towards iSpotZA and rarely finds what we are looking for.
I am trying to mark old Moth posts (how BORING is that?)
https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/view/project/769326/marking-moths
edited out ramblings about the Moth Pit

I flagged it (the now deleted spam) first thing this morning. Either we need more people to flag it, or the system needs tweaking.

PS: I suspect that it’s search engine spam - it’s sufficiently far from coherent English (possibly gone Mark V. Chaney on the contents of the rest of the thread) that I suspect that it’s machine-generated, and it intended to increase the Google (etc) rankings of the target links, rather than to get people to click on the links.


Seems to be a little human.
There’s another here https://forum.ispotnature.org/u/henryjohn/summary
And one similar last week
As long as we put an @note here it should get cleared soon enough

I have got rid of the spam post and user. Also got rid of a couple of other comments about the spam as (unfortunately) they could be misinterpreted to mean that the proper comments were also dodgy once I got rid of the spam i.e. they did not make sense so had to remove them.
Have left in these other comments about spam as they are more general but I could take those out too if you want.
Thanks to all of you who reported the spam.