Red Admiral is not great either.

There are still problems with the search - if you put in "Red Admiral" - the butterfly appears as number 8 after 7 Red Admiral locations and is followed by 178 pages of itemes that include either Red or Admiral as apart of the vernacular name or location.

Vanessa atalanta is a little better, but just in case I didn't mean Vanessa atalanta I'm offered other species names and locations that include vanessa or atalanta. Fortunately only 3 pages this time. If I sort the list by scientific name rather than the default best match, V. atalanta appears as number 5 with V. virginiensis at the top!

The problems with the species search were reported on the Forum in the early days of testing the Atlas and the problems have still not be resolved.

I am informed that there are 31,825 records of this species from 15 datasets on the NBN Atlas Scotland. If I look at the list of datasets there are only 2 with a total of 27,774 records, however, on the records page all 15 datasets are listed with a total of 31,825 records.

Finally there is also the anomaly in the phenology graph of 2,828 records in January, generated by records which are either listed as year only or an interval starting  with a January date e.g. 01-01-1969 - 31-12-1969 . This has already been raised on the forum.

With the system live and no Gateway to fall back on, how can we trust the information that is being provided by the Atlas?

I am profoundly disappointed that the sytem is still not working and that problems which were reported last year have not been addressed. Many of us put a great deal of time and effort into testing the platform and either the developers have not been listening or are unable to resolve the problems (whether for technical reasons or lack of resources). If at the very basic level we can not access the records held in the datasets with confidence, the Atlas is not fit for purpose.

Finally, the link to the NBN Forum from the Atlas produces a page which is not properly formatted.

Christine

Can I just add that when I see a box labelled "Search for taxa" I absolutely *don't* expect it to be a "fuzzy text search across the whole database". I expect it to be a search for a *taxon* ... in fact I don't even expect it to be a search for a "name".

The previous posts suggest that the Atlas is returning maps for records associated with a name and not a taxonomic concept. Is this the case or has there just been a glitch in these cases?

Hi Jim,
   I would do it like this:

https://species.nbnatlas.org/search?q=& … s:accepted

In case the formatter mangles it, that's:
...search
?q=*:*&
fq=scientificName:"Aglais io"&
fq=taxonomicStatus:accepted

   It only returns a single record.
   I read recently that multiple fq filters should be favoured over ANDing clauses.
   Atb, -D

p.s. I see you edited your post so that it just returns one record, either way works.

See my comment on the possible problem with the import of Aglais io records and others.
Jim Bacon

Hi Chris,
    yes, if you look at the url (top of the web browser), you see the (fq) filters that are being applied to the result of the fuzzy match (also shown in the GUI). You could replace your fuzzy search with q=*:* i.e. "any result in : any category" and you would not see a difference. They key thing is the filter query (fq) that allows the entire database (*:*) to be filtered on specific fields. e.g.
https://records.nbnatlas.org/occurrences/search
?q=*:*
&fq=taxon_name:"Vanessa atalanta"
#tab_mapView
(please concatenate the above, copy&paste into firefox's url bar in OSX works, as the forum keeps breaking the url)
   I have written a query filter primer document:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FiV … S6x82xnfu4
   although it is mainly for developers, the underpinning logic might be helpful?
   Atb, -D.

Great - thanks Duncan :)