If there are any other features you think would be useful, and are general (not specific to small groups), then please suggest them here.
Please specify parameters explicitly.
I can probably change it to a number if you would prefer.
I was thinking that people might want to put in estimates (e.g 46-48), but I am happy to make it a simple number.
I would need to check though that the > or < or <= and >= work though
Thanks, Tony.
I think estimates might be troublesome, especially in terms of format: 46 - 48 or 46-48 or 46 to 48. And then, in the case of this example, if I search for 47, it would be missed.
A number, even if it is out by 1 or 2 will be more useful.
But, as you say, Boolean logic might be available for the search terms anyway.
Comments
Can we also include centipede's?
Yes: anything that has segments.
I gather the field entry is seen as a character string and cannot be evaluated as a number?
So we can't use, for instance, &field:body%20segments>48
I can probably change it to a number if you would prefer.
I was thinking that people might want to put in estimates (e.g 46-48), but I am happy to make it a simple number.
I would need to check though that the > or < or <= and >= work though
Thanks, Tony.
I think estimates might be troublesome, especially in terms of format: 46 - 48 or 46-48 or 46 to 48. And then, in the case of this example, if I search for 47, it would be missed.
A number, even if it is out by 1 or 2 will be more useful.
But, as you say, Boolean logic might be available for the search terms anyway.
Done: made a number. No conflicting data.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields/17734
Very many thanks.
It appears one cannot use > or < in a search of a numerical field. Also multiple values (e.g. 46,47) does not work.
Have flagged a request.
Thank you, Tony.
Very helpful!
Add a Comment