Same annotations in different places depending on view (related to odd media asset size possibly?)

Hi, Maureen!
Thanks for all of the extra context; much appreciated!
I’m now suspecting that all of those encounters-with-missing-media-assets are the result of me creating and deleting A BUNCH of manual annotations during testing and failing to appreciate that they were just pooping out encounters.
I think that all that would need to happen would be to delete those encounters (if the encounter was created specifically to house the new manual annotation that has since been deleted, its reason for existence seems to be gone)?

Here’s what I’ll do on Thursday:
Using my test environment (which is workable for this issue), I’ll load a back up of the database from before I started working on this bug fix.
I’ll count the number of encounters associated with this occurrence and confirm that the (hopefully) new media-assetless encounters are from a recent date. If they are, I think we can safely assume that they’re an artefact from my bug testing, and that I simply didn’t clean up after myself. At that point, I think we’re safe to delete the extraneous encounters.

As for finding which encounters are media asset-less, I think that looking for missing camera icons is brilliant!
Ok. Focus, Mark. This is not a support day. :wink:

Hi Mark - sounds like a good plan because at the same time you could look for the encounter that was assigned to CH00015 and the related media asset and somehow restore it to our production system?

Lemme know when you get back to support :wink:


Hi, Maureen!
Ok I did some digging, and I think I can offer us mostly relief!
I restored the database as it was on 5 Feb., 2021 (before I was involved in this particular community thread) in my test environment.

I’m happy to report that those extra, media-asset-less encounters in occurrence were not there previously. As in, they were entirely absent rather than present and containing media assets (see attached side-by-side of older db [left] vs new [right] for this occurrence). Note the negative search result for “edf0” circled in red on the old version and the positive search result for “edf0” circled in red on the new version.

I am fairly confident that this means that the encounters were generated as a result of me continuously creating and deleting manual annotations, and we are free to delete them.

As for the encounter edf08006-dc86-42ef-9265-5b4145403b7b, which is the one associated with individual CH00015? It doesn’t exist in the older database at all, either. I’m guessing I just wanted to test whether assigning a match worked. Unfortunately, I did so many tests related to this bug fix that I cannot remember for certain.

So, largely good news of the variety of, “I only added things rather than changing existing things”.

The one thing that I am confused about is that this individual CH00015 seems to have many more encounters in the new database compared to the 5 feb, 2021 version. Specifically, as of 5 Feb., CH00015 was only associated with two encounters: 05fb252c-831d-4769-9878-af45c7941468 ( and encounter b300f08c-95bc-41b6-89ba-12d89ef3e2f7 ( I wonder whether this increase reflects legitimate work that someone from ACW did since February 5th, given that the images of the new encounters for this individual aren’t familiar to me?

My recommendation would be to delete those encounters on the occurrence “Census_08-09_2.CHEETAH_Original_3_JohannMey” that are missing media assets. I will let y’all do this unless you explicitly ask me to do it.

I will leave the old version of the database up on for you to check out yourself if you want (feel no obligation). If you navigate there and use your normal log in credentials, you’ll be able to compare that Feb. 5 snapshot to the current version.

I will be out of the office next week, so feel welcome to continue perusing that test instance url next week. If you have any more questions about anything, I’ll be happy to answer when I return!

Many thanks for continuing to troubleshoot with me,

Hi @MarkF - the many more encounters linked to CH00015 is likely the work of the researcher to whom this dataset belongs - she works on ACW daily, going through it sighting by sighting. If she came across a sighting of CH00015 that had a lot of pictures in it, then there could be a swath of encounters that get ID’d all at once. So no worries there.

I’ll have a look at the old database link you sent and compare the sighting of Johann Mey there vs the prod system but I expect you’re right in your assessment and that we can just delete those encounters without media assets in the PD system.

Meanwhile, I have a quick question to ask that I’d rather not post here - can you send me your email address? Don’t worry, nothing rude, I promise!


Hi, Maureen!

Glad to hear!

My email address is

Thanks! Just sent you a note. I think this issue can be considered RESOLVED! Thanks so much for your help and perseverance!

Have a great week!


1 Like

Hi @MarkF - I wanted to let you know that we’ve found another example. It’s not a huge deal bec we decided these qualify as unidentifiable but I wanted to show it to you.
I think it’s again related to the odd size/shape of the image (being very landscape). In the screenshot attached here, the boxes added around the 2nd & 3rd cheetahs from the left are offset from the actual cheetahs themselves. The other annotations are correctly placed.
Encounter links:

1 Like

Hi, Maureen!
Thanks for this! I’ve filed a note to investigate Th/Fr.

Hi @MarkF - I’m reporting this to you almost as an FYI, at least low priority. We found another instance of the bounding boxes being in different places.
Ex.1: the annotation is in the right place in the encounter gallery but in a very different place in the match result target image:
Match: Wildbook for Carnivores

Ex2: the annotation was manually added by the researcher in the encounter and after that, the annotation displays in the encounter as materially offset from where she drew the box. But in the match results, the target image displays the annotation in the correct location (around the cheetah):
match: Wildbook for Carnivores


1 Like

@ACWadmin1 cross-posting here that WB-1634 fix has been deployed (from the post that was split out from this one).

2 posts were split to a new topic: Misdrawn bounding boxes as possible symptom of exif issues?