1

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

There have been a number of ideas proposed to enhance Recorder which we would like your feedback on. Namely these are:

- A task pane - this could benefit new users as this provides easy access to all the common tasks and can be tailored using a rucksack to include favourite recording cards, reports, surveys and locations etc.
- Enhancements to the existing report grid - filtering, sorting, reloading samples into a recording card, navigating to the observation hierarchy, drilling down into the data by further reporting, ability to copy print and send selected rows to map as well as generate SQL.
-Import Wizard improvements - eg facility to switch off previous matches, export invalid rows to excel additional columns etc.

The details of each of these ideas can be found in the zipped document: http://forums.nbn.org.uk/uploads.php?file=InterfaceProposals_2009.zip Or perhaps you have others to suggest? We have a simple feedback form http://forums.nbn.org.uk/uploads.php?file=Recorder%206%20Enhancements_FeedbackForm.doc to find out exactly which bits you think are most useful which would be really helpful if you could fill in (if you haven't already done so at the NBN Conference) and email to me directly or simply post a comment below this post.

Many thanks for your assistance.
Best Wishes,
Lynn

2

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

I've got a request for an improvement - please make sure the common names export properly. 

I have noticed that a lot of species entered using the preferred checklists don't export the common names.  Instead the Latin name is repeated.  If you use the Recorder 3.3 checklist the common names are exported.  For example, records of Formica rufa have Red Wood Ant as the common name if they were entered using the Recorder 3.3 checklist, but Formica rufa if they were entered using the preferred checklist.

This has given me lots of extra work when I export our data to MapInfo so that we can use it for data searches.  I have had to add in the common names for lots of records.  We supply data to all sorts of people, and a lot of them do not use Latin names.

Also, it would be nice if when a species does not have a common name (for example, a lot of the lichens, moths & mosses) the common name would say something like 'a lichen' instead of just repeating the Latin name.  It would make life a lot easier - at least we would have an idea of what some of these species are.

Ellie

Eleanor Knott
Technical Co-ordinator
Devon Biodiversity Records Centre
C/o Exeter Central Library
Castle Street
Exeter
EX4 3PQ
Tel. (01392) 274128

Eleanor Knott
Devon Biodiversity Records Centre

3

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

Can I add my support to both of Eleanor’s suggestions, along with improvements to other issues about the lack of consistency within the species checklists which have been raised recently in other threads (e.g. http://forums.nbn.org.uk/viewtopic.php?id=1236, http://forums.nbn.org.uk/viewtopic.php?id=1228, http://forums.nbn.org.uk/viewtopic.php?id=1251),  and those which can have knock-on effects when using the species designation sets, (e.g. http://forums.nbn.org.uk/viewtopic.php?id=1235).

Recorder is a biological recording package, and I imagine the majority of users are using it for species recording.  As such I see it as critical, that when we are producing outputs for end-users with no biological knowledge to taxonomic experts, we should be able to get right the issues around the basic unit of what we are recording.  It is apparent from the forum that many of us within the record centres are coming up with our own individual workarounds to overcome species issues.  Surely it should be a priority to have them resolved within the Recorder package.


Alison Stewart
Environmental Database Manager
Dorset Environmental Records Centre

Alison Stewart
Dorset Environmental Records Centre

4 (edited by TonyP 15-12-2009 09:48:36)

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

It is so depressing to come across this issue Elle and Alison, I'm just trying to get R6 finalised and to find that it is still going create more work rather than solve a problem is not a nice thought.

How is it that the R3 dictionary can be correct but everything after is not? This should have never happened and as it has should have been corrected a decade ago. Does the NBN have something against people using species data in the real world?

If it wasn't bad enough that to get species status information took Charles and I 3 days to get a query correct to answer a question that took 3 minutes on R3!

So three steps backward and increased labour charges. And it's Christmas and there is not enough daylight :D

Sorry Lynn you weren't even asking for such responses.

Data Manger
Somerset Environmental Records Centre

5

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

Hi Lynn

If it is still possible to make suggestions, please have the developers make all variables that can be imported available for selection in the Report Wizard, eg the Welsh vice county numbers, so that may select records with the VC number as part of each record (rather than having to use the Source to select each VC in turn).

All the best, Ian

6

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

Ellie,

Also, it would be nice if when a species does not have a common name (for example, a lot of the lichens, moths & mosses) the common name would say something like 'a lichen' instead of just repeating the Latin name.  It would make life a lot easier - at least we would have an idea of what some of these species are.

In the Report Wizard you can select the Taxon Group attribute and it will return 'a lichen' if the species is a lichen. You can then use a simple bit of logic in Excel like this:

=IF(A1=B1, C1, B1)

Where column A is the Latin name, B is the common name and C is the Taxon Group. What this does is to check if the Latin name equals the common name; if it does then it inserts the Taxon Group, otherwise it inserts the common name.

It would be a good feature to have this functionality built into Recorder, though.

If you want to do the same thing in an SQL query, you can use a CASE statement, like this:

CASE WHEN ITN2.PREFERRED_NAME = ITN2.COMMON_NAME THEN
  TXG.TAXON_GROUP_NAME
ELSE
  ITN2.COMMON_NAME
END AS [COMMON NAME]

Full code here: http://pastie.org/767879

Charles Roper
Digital Development Manager | Field Studies Council
http://www.field-studies-council.org | https://twitter.com/charlesroper | https://twitter.com/fsc_digital

7

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

Using taxa from the List of additional names for data entry is another cause for concern as observations entered using this list in the taxon dictionary are not included in certain reports when users would expect them to be. I tested this with Melangyna compositarum/labiatarum, a hoverfly.

The following report wizard reports returned the observations for Melangyna, M. Compositarum and M. Labiatarum entered using the Recorder 3.3 list and the DIPTERA list, the preferred list for Diptera, but not observations for M. compositarum/labiatarum, entered using the List of additional names:

Report for Syrphidae, the family containing Melangyna, selected from the Recorder 3.3 list
Report for Melangyna selected from the Recorder 3.3 list
Report for Syrphidae selected from the DIPTERA list
Report for Melangyna selected from the DIPTERA list
Report using the DIPTERA list and ‘All taxa from list’

These reports should all have included observations for M. compositarum/labiatarum. Either the taxon dictionary or the way Recorder 6 does reports needs to be modified so that they are included. Other lists also need to be checked for this problem. If anyone finds examples, could they please post them on the forum to help ensure they are not overlooked.

The work around for this problem is to also select M. compositarum/labiatarum from the List of additional names when selecting taxa in the report wizard but this relies on users finding out which additional taxa need to be selected. In the case of doing a report for Diptera one thing that should help is the xml report on the number of species observations per taxon group. To run it in v6.14, select Reports – Run – System Reports – Statistics – St05. This will tell you how many observations you should have in a Diptera report although it includes unchecked, confidential and zero abundance observations as well as observations that are flagged as failed/pending verification. These will be excluded from a report wizard report unless you have removed these constraints. St03 – Number of observations per species – includes taxon list so if the result of this is copied or exported to Excel and sorted on taxon list you can see what lists have been used to enter your data. Looking for observations entered using lists like the List of additional names may help pinpoint observations that are being excluded from reports. It will not, however, help track down the problem reported by Craig Slawson 11/01/10 http://forums.nbn.org.uk/viewtopic.php?pid=5668#p5668 where a report done selecting an order from the Recorder 3.3 list produced a different number of observations from a report done using the corresponding preferred list and neither included all the observations he was expecting.

The fact that the List of additional names isn’t arranged in a hierarchy is a nuisance. It means that it takes longer to open than other lists and that you can’t easily see which family, order etc. a taxon belongs to. I suspect this also contributes to the reporting problems above as it is probably a contributing factor to it not being linked through properly in NameServer.

Personally, I think the reporting problems that seem to be caused by the taxon dictionary need to be fixed as a priority, especially as users may not be aware that they are happening. In that, I would include the problems reported in the preceding posts. In my opinion, these should certainly take priority over nice-to-haves like the enhancements to the user interface that have been proposed, although we also need improvements to the import wizard especially the facility to export invalid items to Excel with an information column to indicate the issue, as mentioned in Lynn’s post, 24/11/09, http://forums.nbn.org.uk/viewtopic.php?pid=5401#p5401 . If there is the money to fix the reporting problems like these and other priority problems, and to do the nice-to-haves, then I would welcome the nice-to-haves but not at the expenses of fixing reporting problems.

Sally Rankin, JNCC Recorder Approved Expert
E-mail: s.rankin@btinternet.com
Telephone: 01491 578633
Mobile: 07941 207687

8

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

Personally, I think the reporting problems that seem to be caused by the taxon dictionary need to be fixed as a priority, especially as users may not be aware that they are happening.

I agree Sally. This is a question of having confidence in Recorder. Above and beyond everything else we must be able to have confidence that data are going in correctly and also coming out correctly. If, at any point, we cannot be confident that we are getting the full, accurate, picture when doing a report, then that is a fundamental problem that needs to be fixed as the top priority.

Charles Roper
Digital Development Manager | Field Studies Council
http://www.field-studies-council.org | https://twitter.com/charlesroper | https://twitter.com/fsc_digital

9

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

Alison Stewart wrote:

Recorder is a biological recording package, and I imagine the majority of users are using it for species recording.  As such I see it as critical, that when we are producing outputs for end-users with no biological knowledge to taxonomic experts, we should be able to get right the issues around the basic unit of what we are recording.

Echoing this comment, could I again ask for checklists for the Coleoptera and Aculeate Hymenoptera that DO NOT include the subgenus as part of the species name, exported or not, the great majority of users do not require them.  Have them by all mean if they are really needed as an option selectable checklist, but display the basic species information as a binomial name, both on recorder and on the NBN Gateway. 

I know there are workarounds to get these names to display as a "proper" binomial but, echoing some of the comments abouve, we should not have to produce workarounds when the problem could be solved by using an appropriate checklist.

Matt

10

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

Hi Lynn

I have been doing some work with the data we have for our local breeding bird atlas and I am wanting to find which tetrads have no records, so need to be able select locations where an instance of, say, 'Bird (activity)' is null. I have been struggling to find such a possibility and failed, so far. I want to be able to do this in order to direct observers to tetrads that have no records.

However, I need this facility fairly soon. Is there any chance this may happen?

All the best, Ian

11

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

It is difficult without knowning the structure of your data to provide anything specific, but the following XML report would list all Locatiosn where no birds have been recorded.   
 
<?xml version='1.0' ?>

<!-- Trial
     XML Report by Mike Weideli of Littlefield Consultancy
     http://www.lfield.co.uk
     Locations  with no samples
 
-->


<CustomReport  title="LC1_10- Survey Statistics " menupath="LC reports" 
description="Returns Locations with No Samples  " >


<SQL>

<Where keytype="Default">

SELECT L.Location_key, LN.Item_Name
FROM Location L
INNER JOIN Location_Name LN
ON LN.Location_Key = L.Location_Key AND LN.Preferred = 1
WHERE NOT EXISTS
(SELECT * FROM Sample S INNER JOIN Taxon_Occurrence Tocc
ON TOCC.Sample_key = S.Sample_key
INNER JOIN Taxon_Determination TDET ON TDET.Taxon_Occurrence_Key = TOCC.Taxon_Occurrence_key
INNER JOIN Taxon_List_Item TLI ON TLI.Taxon_List_Item_key = TDET.Taxon_List_Item_key
iNNER JOIN Taxon_Version TV ON TV.Taxon_Version_Key = TLI.Taxon_Version_Key
WHERE TV.Output_Group_Key = 'NHMSYS0000080039' AND S.Location_key = L.Location_Key)

</Where>


</SQL>

</CustomReport>

Mike Weideli

12

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

Fearing that the requested changes in this thread may have gotten overlooked - can I hereby add my support for the changes and enhancements requested/suggested by Eleanor, Alison and Sally ref. species names and Common names.

A definite 'BUMP' for this thread !!

Steve

Steve J. McWilliam
www.rECOrd-LRC.co.uk
www.stevemcwilliam.co.uk/guitar/

13

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

Following on from Matt's post above about subgenera, may I repeat a request for built-in handling of subgeneric names in R6?  Not only for the groups he mentions (though my own speciality of Aculeates is especially badly affected), but all.

In addition to exports, could we also have the facility when importing records with straight binomials from Excel to have these recognised in the 'preferred lists'?  Currently (it is fresh in my mind having just imported a bundle of Heteroptera) if the listed name has the subgenus, R6 does not recognise the binomial, and as I am not familar with the subgenera of Hets, I had to go to NBNG, find the preferred name with subgenus, and then type in the genus and start of the subgenus before searching the dictionary again.  It is a real toil if there are lots of them.

Murdo

14

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

I would like add my voice to Matt's and Syrphus's requests regarding subgeneric names in R6.  Their inclusion adds an unnecessary level of complexity to biological recording and reporting.   

Furthermore I request that, after removal of subgeneric names from preferred checklists, the sort order of species is alphabetical within genera (not alphabetical within subgenera, which would be the case if subgeneric names were simply removed from the current checklists). 

A new recording card for water beetles has just been issued by BRC.  I'm pleased to see that it lacks subgeneric names, and the sort order is alphabetical within genera.  R6, please follow suit!

15 (edited by sallyrankin 08-12-2010 19:22:16)

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

Murdo,

Were you making use of ‘Enable partial name search for taxa’ and ‘Auto-complete search in Import Wizard’ (tick boxes in Tools – Options) when searching the taxon dictionary? If you were, I think you would have found the matching much easier. ‘Enable partial name search’ is explained in the Help – F1 on Tools – Options will enable you to find it if you follow the right links, otherwise search for ‘Abbreviated Species Names’. In essence, it allows you to search for something using part of the genus and part of the species name, separated by a space, so ‘Agab b’ will find Agabus (Gaurodytes) biguttatus in the BEETLES list (Search By needs to be set to Name). If ‘Enable partial name search’ isn’t ticked the subgenus prevents the Find returning anything for ‘Agabus b’. Note that the standard abbreviation for this is agbig so that will also find it.

When ‘Auto-complete search in Import Wizard’ is ticked, clicking the Get button (magnifying glass) beside an unmatched species on the species matching page of the wizard opens the taxon dictionary and the Find Taxon dialogue box, with the Search Text box pre-populated with the species name from the import file. If the import file contains, say, Agabus biguttatus and ‘Enable partial name search’ is ticked, clicking the Get button will list Agabus (Gaurodytes) biguttatus in the matches box making it relatively easy to do the match. If no match is found, characters can be deleted from the end of the genus or species until a match is found.

‘Auto-complete search in Import Wizard’ was a new facility in v6.15 (CCN376) but the Help wasn’t updated for that release although the changes were documented in the release notes. This is on my list of required Help updates.

Sally Rankin, JNCC Recorder Approved Expert
E-mail: s.rankin@btinternet.com
Telephone: 01491 578633
Mobile: 07941 207687

16

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

Thanks Sally.  I had one of these options selected, not the other.  I will investigate, but it stills sounds like a hassle for little real return.  And it does not help the export of subgenera.  I think the objections are that subgenera are of little relevance to most purposes, and those who do need them will have the knowledge and expertise to play with them.  Some taxon lists have them in profusion, while others ignore them even though subgenera are defined.

Murdo

17 (edited by sallyrankin 13-12-2010 14:37:02)

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

I drew Charles Hussey’s attention to the requests for the removal of subgenera in this topic when working on http://forums.nbn.org.uk/viewtopic.php?pid=8106#p8106 . His response was ‘I note the plea by Recorder users for simple binomial names without subgenera; however, the Dictionary promotes best taxonomic practice and therefore include subgenera, when available’. If subgenera aren’t going to be removed, hopefully the facilities in my earlier post above will help users cope with them. If they aren’t required in species names in reports, perhaps a function could be written to enable users to select an attribute which is the scientific name without the subgenera.

Sally Rankin, JNCC Recorder Approved Expert
E-mail: s.rankin@btinternet.com
Telephone: 01491 578633
Mobile: 07941 207687

18

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

A bit harsh Bob. What this probably does reflect is that good practice for taxonomists may not be particularly helpful for the rest of us. Looking forward to the fun and games when Prof Stace's new plant names start to filter through :)

Gordon Barker
Biological Survey Data Manager
National Trust

19

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

Gordon Barker wrote:

Prof Stace's new plant names start to filter through :)

Any ideas when???

Charlie Barnes
Information Officer
Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership

20

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

We have a copy of the third edition so it must be on general release. According to someone who has had a bit more of a look than me, about 170 changed latin names, including completely new genera. Probably depends how long BSBI take to incorporate it into their list and get it to NHM.

Gordon Barker
Biological Survey Data Manager
National Trust

21

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

I think you have the solution, Sally - not the workaround, which we should not have to do, but that there should be handling within R6 to deal with it.  I see no vociferous calls *for* subgenera, but there is clearly dissatisfaction with their use.  R6 is a practical tool, and if the practitioners find subgenera a problem that should be taken seriously.

It is not difficult to write a routine to strip subgenera - I'm sure we all have our own - but that should be within R6, with an option to use it or not in imports and exports, instead of forcing us to do workarounds in imports and post-export processing with our own functions.

M.

22

Re: Proposals for Recorder Enahancements - Feedback required

Peter Llewellyn of the Wild Flower Society has mailed me a link to a new page he has created listing ALL the British Vascular/Higher Plants and with all of the new Stace names added (and the old synonyms kept for reference).  Move your mouse over the plants scientific name.

The link is:

http://www.thewildflowersociety.com/wfs … u_2010.htm

Hope it proves useful.

Steve

Steve J. McWilliam
www.rECOrd-LRC.co.uk
www.stevemcwilliam.co.uk/guitar/