Change in definition of co-occurrence in Flukebook?

What Wildbook are you working in? Flukebook

What is the entire URL out of the browser, exactly where the error occurred? Flukebook

Can you describe what the issue is you’re experiencing? Previously Flukebook seemed to recognise encounters belonging to the same sighting/occurrence, and these were visible in the co-occurrence diagrams for each individual. Now I note that there is a new ‘occurring with’ column in the individual search results table, which is blank for all of our individuals, despite many individuals having been seen in pairs or trios, and having been entered into Flukebook with the same sighting ID number. I have tried to adjust the new filters for time and distance to see if Flukebook would recognise co-occurrences, but this does not seem to help. I would be grateful for any guidance you could offer on how to rectify this.

Can you provide steps on how to reproduce what you’re experiencing? Individual Search > search results > co-occurrence table and/or diagram.

If this is a bulk import report, send the spreadsheet to with the email subject line matching your bug report

Hi @GiannaMinton

We have not changed the definition of Occurrence, but we have optimized this visualization code to be a lot faster in display. I did look at your example for OM02-020, and I could not find any example Occurrence where it co-occurred with another individual (I clicked through several of its Encounters). Do you have an example where it has co-occurred with another individual in Flukebook? Or an example for another two whales that share an Occurrence. I am happy to dig deeper, but right now it looks like the code is reflecting the data for this individual.

Can you provide another example?


Hi Jason. Thank you for getting back to me so quickly on this. When we imported our data - there should have been a unique sighting code that linked encounters in the photo-ID database to sightings/occurrences in the sightings database (column IH in the Excel sheet that you sent me from 28 Nov 2020 - perhaps I can send it by email if you need to see this again). I remember talking about this, and how this should be used to assign encounters to the same sighting, and you applied a clever rule to ensure that encounters made in the same time and date and place could also be assigned to the same occurrence/sighting even if they did not have this unique sighting ID. This spreadsheet contains multiple instances where identified whales, including OM02-020 have the same sighting ID as other whales - including this one from 28/02/2015 - where you can see that the animals all have the exact same date, time and lat-long coordinates for the encounter, as well as the same sighting ID in column IH of the spreadsheet:

Somehow it looks like these did not get captured as co-occurrences, now that they are fully uploaded and in the system. I must not have noticed this on my earlier testing of the system. I’m so sorry. I did notice it yesterday however when I spent a few hours on Flukebook testing things out again in preparation for a new bulk upload and some training and work with some of our ASWN partners. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can do to rectify this.


I’m open to trying to relink them using the existing data. I have access to the bulk upload spreadsheet that you sent in April 2021. The Occurrence.occurrenceID column was not populated, hence the Encounters are not linked.

Would linking by corresponding date and GPS coordinates be sufficient, or is there more logic that needs to be used to link them?


Hi Jason. Thanks again for your very quick reply and willingness to work on this so quickly. I see on the April 2021 sheet that the Occurrence ID column (J) is populated with what looks like a Flukebook autogenerated code. I had assumed that this was linked to the sighting IDs that we had provided - (previous reference to column IH on the full export sheet from Nov 2020 - those ‘unused/unmapped’ columns apparently dropped out in the April version). If these sighting IDs did not get carried over/mapped across, I think that your suggestion to use GPS coordinates and date would probably be sufficient. Adding a time of day would add another level of certainty, but I am fairly certain that the GPS coordinates will not be exactly the same for multiple sightings made on the same day unless they were truly the same occurrence/sighting. Thank you again for your willingness to address this, and my apologies again for not noticing that this hadn’t worked properly last year.

This has been assigned ticket WB-1908. I will do a preview list of the linkages and send it to you privately for approval before actually making the change. This may take up to a week or more for me to schedule, though I will try to get to it sooner rather than later.