If this is a bulk import report, send the spreadsheet to services@wildme.org with the email subject line matching your bug report
In which Wildbook did the issue occur? Internet of Turtles
What operating system were you using? (eg. MacOS 10.15.3) MacOS
What web browser were you using? (eg. Chrome 79) Chrome
What is your role on the site? (admin, researcher, etc) researcher
What happened?
I searched for a group of individuals that were encountered between Jun ‘24-25 who were seen in the San Gabriel River and the results show many individuals as ‘unassigned’ but when I select into the record I see that they do have an ID.
I’m attaching screen shots - you can see that the sighting ID is the same in both instances.
What did you expect to happen?
What are some steps we could take to reproduce the issue?
Thanks for letting us know. There does appear to be an indexing issue. I repeated this same search in Classic encounter search and got 27 results, whereas the standard encounter search shows 74 results.
I’ll check with the devs about the indexing behavior. In the meantime, you should be able to work from the Classic encounter search.
We fixed the bug and are re-indexing encounters in IoT. This may take a little while. Can you check in with me tomorrow and let me know if you’re still seeing discrepancies between the classic and the regular search for your unnamed turtles?
Hi Anastasia,
That seemed to fix most of the problem, but I still have encounters dated 06/28/25 that show unassigned and when I go into the encounter they show unassigned also…. However, there is nothing in the ‘imported by’ field (which would show the bulk import). I’ve checked all of the bulk imports that are for encounters on 6/28/25 have been either matched or given an ID.
Seems like something’s still not correct - maybe some stale data?
Thanks,
Cheryl
https://iot.wildbook.org/react/encounter?number=72bbbf20-14fe-4e67-b64f-5670e3fc69b4
Just to make sure I understand correctly, you shouldn’t have any encounters that don’t belong to a bulk import because all of your data is bulk imported?
I do still see a smaller discrepancy between the searches (27 in classic and 35 in standard). We’ll continue working on this.
Correct, the only data we’ve been populating is via the bulk upload process.
Gotcha. I’ll see if I can do some detective work with the devs on this. I’ll let you know if I need more info.
1 Like
