What Wildbook are you working in?
Sharkbook
Can you describe what the issue is you’re experiencing?
I am trying to search the Sharkbook database for whale shark sightings/encounters in the Gulf of Mexico. If I use the map to create a lat/long coordinate box around the Gulf as a filter, my search for Rhincodon typus returns no results. However, if I remove the coordinate filter, I find database entries with location ID’s such as Mexico-BLA or 4a1 or 7d. These entries don’t have lat/long coordinates, only location IDs.
What do these location ID’s mean? to where on the globe are they referring? Will searches using a coordinate filter only return results if lat/log are reported with the encounter, or will any location ID corresponding to the coordinate filter also be returned?
Hi @adangerfield, welcome!
Good question with a few layers to it. I’ll start by addressing how to find whale sharks in the Gulf coast:
- Start an Encounter search
- Expand the section for Location filter (text) and hold down Cmd (on Mac) or Ctrl (on PC) while clicking on 2e, 2e1, and Texas to multi-select them. 2e refers to U.S. Gulf Coast and 2e1 refers to Ewing Banks.
- Expand the section for Observation attribute filters and select Rhincodon typus
- Click Search encounters
Your results should look like this: Search results
Ok, now on to the background info:
When you search by specific coordinates, Sharkbook will only return encounters that match those coordinates exactly. Since Wildbooks only require one type of location data (location ID, description of the location, or lat/long) when reporting an encounter, there may be multiple encounters with different location values that ultimately refer to the same area. The primary way to report the location is using the location ID menu.
When we add a location ID to a Wildbook, it’s based on the places our users request. In the past, they’ve been entered as they’ve been provided verbatim (such as Mexico-BLA), but in recent years, we make sure the locations are readable and understood by all users. We have plans to update alphanumeric names, but it involves first changing the locations of all the existing encounters that already use them, so that takes time.
The last piece of this is that when users request a new location ID added, the coordinates are optional. In our Feature Request template, there’s an option for a user to provide the coordinates if they have it so that it becomes the default whenever that location ID is used. Most people don’t provide this and we don’t require it, so the location ID name becomes the primary way a place is identified.
Hi Anastasia, thank you for the response and instructions. Is there any resource users can read to understand to what area location ID’s, like 2e or 2e1, are referring so we know which locations ID’s to use in a search? For example, I didn’t know that 2e or 2e1 refer to the Gulf of Mexico. I also don’t know which area of Mexican waters Mexico-BLA refers to.
I agree, it’s confusing. Apparently when Sharkbook was first built, all of the location IDs were alphanumeric. I think this was in part because it was tailored for use by a smaller group of people who used this naming convention internally.
Until we get around to making the location names more accessible, I can email you the spreadsheet I have that defines the alphanumeric regions.
I checked with a teammate and they said it stands for Bahia Los Angeles.
I almost forgot; I’ll link to previous feature requests where other users have requested more readable location IDs in Sharkbook:
Thank you for all of the information Anastasia, it’s exactly what I need.
Does Wildme have any spatial polygons that define the boundaries of LocationID regions? I am specifically interested in Location IDs Texas, 2e, and 2e1. I ask because 3/4 of the Whale Shark encounters with these Location IDs have no lat/long coordinates. I am trying to map the encounters as accurately as possible. With a boundary around a location ID region, I could get a count of shark encounters within a specific area.
1 Like
No. Unless we’re given coordinates to include when a new location ID is added, Wildbook only factors in a name match for the location ID. Here’s the help doc that explains it in further detail: Location IDs — Wildbook documentation
I was reviewing old feature requests today and I came across this one from a few years ago that also requested a distance-based boundary for location IDs: Restrict matching by distance
It sounds like this was actively considered for development at some point, but fizzled out. I’ll see what I can find out about what happened with that conversation and report back.