DavidHowdon's picture

Misidentifications in Other Observations

http://www.ispotnature.org/node/374398 of Common Rosefinch

One of the observations under the "Other Observations" carousel is http://www.ispotnature.org/node/321742 which was originally mis-identified as Common Rosefinch but now has a different likely ID.



DavidHowdon's picture

Another example

http://www.ispotnature.org/node/270712 appears in the carousel under http://www.ispotnature.org/node/374599 although RBF is not its likely ID.

Mydaea's picture


http://www.ispotnature.org/node/376298 (Volucella bombylans) has
http://www.ispotnature.org/node/361345?nav=related (Eristalis intricarius) and
http://www.ispotnature.org/node/368048?nav=related (Arctophila superbiens)
as "other observations" of V. bombylans.

Does this new improved iSpot just note the first ID offered, right or wrong? It rather seems so. Another consequence of rushing out an inadequately tested site, I think.

Mydaea's picture

And, to support the

And, to support the hypothesis,
http://www.ispotnature.org/node/376298 (V. bombylans)
appears as another B. lucorum under

Tony Rebelo's picture

Issue is fixed in ZA version

We dont have this problem in the South African site. We did have it but Richard fixed it: it applied to species that were not in the species dictionary that linked incorrectly.

The problem here is that B lucorum is not in the dictionary - well it is but as "Bombus lucorum" not "Bombus (Bombus) lucorum" - someone will need to crack the whip to get users to use only dictionary compatible names!

Or alternatively the dictionary will need to be added to to include subgenera as synonyms of species. But clearly iSpot is currently seeing "Bombus lucorum" and "Bombus (Bombus) lucorum" as separate species, the former linking to the dictionary and the latter not.

Tony Rebelo's picture


It still gives the same error in the UK site where the dictionary does contain the subgenera!
i.e. http://www.ispot.org.uk/node/376298 (V. bombylans)
appears as another B. lucorum under http://www.ispot.org.uk/node/362745

But we dont have this issue on the ZA site - it was fixed about 2 years ago.

Tony Rebelo's picture

so was this

so was this bl879873dy preview button. Why not just offer a save and preview?: those who want to preview can use it and those who dont dont have to go through the rigmarole of hundreds of clicks and pages to make a simple comment!

Riaan Stals's picture

Ignore me

Ignore me. I am just trying out the bl879873dy preview button.


Riaan Stals's picture

Don't ignore me any longer


This bl879873dy preview button will drive one over the hill!!! It is utterly and completely stupid. As Rebelo above suggested:
Why not just offer a save and preview?: those who want to preview can use it and those who dont dont have to

Go make a comment on iSpot Southern Africa http://www.ispot.org.za for much smoother sailing.

Please keep in mind that every click costs some bandwidth, and I don't have all of that to waste. It may be inconsequential in UK/Ireland, but here in Chile and southern Africa we are on the wrong side of the digital divide and it makes a humungous difference. It will certainly stifle many iSpotters from freely commenting on observations and joining in those iSpot discussions that make my nights bearable.

I'm done. But here I have to go again: I really don't want to see a preview of this rant, but I am forced to. Nothing but a waste of precious bandwidth.


JoC's picture

Save & Preview

I had noticed, in passing, that there is only 'preview' in here, but had not seen it as a problem; for me it is just one extra click. Now that you have raised it as a real problem for those in digitally difficult areas, wherever on the globe you are, I expect the ISpot team will investigate adding it to their list. I am happy to support this request. Perhaps others will too.


Martin Harvey's picture

Preview/save choice

Yes, it's on the list, and I entirely agree that being forced to do the preview is very annoying! Will see what can be done.

Entomologist and biological recorder

Martin Harvey's picture

Other observations

Thanks everyone - this one is on our list to change when possible. One could make an argument that there is some value to having misidentifications in the "Other observations" carousel, so that you can see which species get mistaken for the species in question, but personally I agree that it is better to have the carousel showing Likely IDs only.

Entomologist and biological recorder

DavidHowdon's picture

Misidentifications are useful

and it would be interesting to be able to get a "things frequently mis-identified as this taxon" and "things this taxon is frequently mis-identified as" report from iSpot. But as you say not in the Likely ID carousel.