Data in Import Log table does not appear to be correct

In which Wildbook did the issue occur?

What operating system were you using? (eg. MacOS 10.15.3)
WIN 10

What web browser were you using? (eg. Chrome 79)
Chrome latest

What is your role on the site? (admin, researcher, etc)

What happened?
Bulk import log table shows images and individuals in an import - but both numbers are always identical

What did you expect to happen?
Most imports would have a lot fewer individuals than images on average - highly unlikely to be equal.

What are some steps we could take to reproduce the issue?


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

Hi @PaulK

Good catch. We had a duplicated query picking up the wrong value. I deployed a temporary fix to ACW. Do the new numbers look accurate?

The formal fix is ticket WB-1928 and is now in code review.


Hi @jason

Based on the data below - we have another problem altogether.

None of my imports have so many images (media assets) and I would expect to have at minimum, an equal number of encounters as images (counting the trivial detection) - so the data in the table below looks off.



CC @ACWadmin1

Hi @PaulK

I did some more benchmarking and updated the code. Calculation (via a query) and evaluating accuracy are tricky because there are several numbers to consider:

-Number imported spreadsheet rows
-Number Encounters, which may not be the same as the number of rows for social species as finding multiple annotations in an image spawns new Encounters
-Number MediaAssets, which for solo species may be close to the number of Encounters, but may be much smaller than Encounters for social species because one photo can have many annotations

And the above may not match exactly if there is any photo duplication in the bulk import spreadsheet rows.

Going through the current image # calculations, I see the table now matching each Import Task page’s number of media assets. So I think we’re closer if not there in the estimation. I welcome feedback as the calculation has some complexity to it.


Based on what I see, looks good.

Thank you.



1 Like