What did you expect to happen?
I expected to see a longer list of encounters on the individual record, a closer correlation to the actual number of matched encounters.
If this is working as designed, can you tell me what determines the number of encounter records listed on an individual record? thanks
Hey @ACWadmin1,
The list is working as intended. It is a listing of encounters, not images within an encounter.
Matched encounters remain distinct encounters; they do not merge into a single one referencing the individual. So the linked encounter is causing me some concern because it appears to be the same animal across different times and places, which is not the intended use of an encounter.
Sorry, I’m not sure I understand what you’re explaining. I know that the list is of encounters, not images. What I was expecting was to see more encounters in the list under the individual if there are more than 2 encounters attached to that individual. When I look at the linked encounter record with the multiple images, all of those images, which are different times and locations, are all ID’d as the same individual. So each of these should be different encounter records and listed in the encounters table in the Individual’s record.
Maybe this is related to the bug where multiple “this encounter” tags are assigned to thumbnails in a single encounter record? Which might explain why they are not listed as separate and distinct encounters in Hollister’s Individual record?
The encounter you linked has images from multiple times and places in it. However, they are all in one encounter. You need to separate the different images into different encounters. This data was uploaded this way back in April; guessing what happened was someone did a manual upload and added all the images they had of that individual.
The data is incorrectly associated, so this isn’t an issue on our end. And the encounter list is doing what it should: displaying the number of encounter records, which is two.
Does that help?
Tanya
That all makes sense except for how these were uploaded. The original upload of individuals was done by @jason and I don’t think he used the manual ‘submit an encounter’ for that dataset? And should I review all of the other ID’d individuals uploaded at that time for this issue as well?
This was an early bulk import with the intent of building the ID catalog of known individuals without dates/times for each photo (a subset of the data provided by BPCT via folders in Dropbox). This then facilitated matching of subsequent imports and data with where/when against a baseline catalog of known individuals.
Since these are all of Hollister, they satisfy the definition of an Encounter and can remain as is. The actual sighting in which dates of Hollister were meant for subsequent imports in which that data is available.
I understand that ID photos - photos selected by BPC, in this case, to be the “match against” photos (1 right side, 1 left side, 1 tail) don’t necessarily have to have location & date/time data. But this is a large batch of photos and so I agree with Tanya, I don’t think these should all be part of a single encounter. So I will need to work out a fix.
Meanwhile, can you get me a list of other encounters for ID’d individuals that were handled the same way so that we can review and fix those as well? thanks @PaulK - FYI
Click the “Date” column header once and it should sort with Encounters with no dates at the top. Those without dates and with a created date of 4/1/2020 should be the reference catalog of individuals (dogs and leopards) that seeded the ID catalog.
One important thing to keep in mind: a human researcher took the time to associate these multi-perspective photos, linking lefts, rights, etc. This is valuable data. This baseline Encounter may be the only way that these lefts and rights are associated, allowing for linkage for all future analyses and match results. If you delete this data, it may take a long time to re-associate lefts and rights again for your individuals. Unless you think the BPCT folks made systematic errors in their decisions, these baseline photo associations are an asset. They do not hurt data analysis nor science downstream.