BSBI Distribution Database > message board

County singleton need validation error

Please report any problems with the website. Suggestions for changes are also very welcome.

County singleton need validation error

by AndyAmphlett » Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:45 pm

Hi Tom,

running the query for county singletons that need validation, (link via the my county page for vc94) ie. http://bsbidb.org.uk/search.php#query=b ... 94221ee13f

My county page indicates 35 records, but running the query returns 197 records including very common species eg. Calluna. If I remove the validation clause the results make sense.

Andy.
AndyAmphlett
 
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 9:32 am
name: Andy Amphlett

Re: County singleton need validation error

by admin » Sun Sep 04, 2016 10:08 pm

Hi Andy,

Thanks very much for spotting and diagnosing this problem. I'd been demonstrating the singleton filters at the recorders' conference today and thought that the results looked odd, but hadn't yet identified the validation constraint as the source of the problem.

Search filters of this type should now work correctly.
Tom Humphrey
Database Officer, Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland (BSBI)
c/o Centre for Ecology and Hydrology,Maclean Building, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, Oxon, OX10 8BB, UK.
tom.humphrey@bsbi.org
User avatar
admin
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:16 pm
name: Tom Humphrey

Re: County singleton need validation error

by AndyAmphlett » Mon Sep 05, 2016 7:50 am

Tom,

thanks. Yes that makes sense now.

I did a bit more digging and noted some oddities about how the query worked. Again for vc94, running the query for county singletons that need validation.

The mycounty page says there are 35 singletons needing validation in vc94.
Running the query produces 49 record of 45 taxa.
If I copy and paste those 45 taxa into a query, restricted to vc94, I get 65 records. Examining those, I see that the original query is ignoring duplicates, which sort of makes sense, but maybe both of a pair of duplicates should be validated, not just one? In part the discrepancy is because some of the taxa needing validation are aggregates, and pasting an agg. name into a query finds taxa within that agg.
Two records are missing - http://bsbidb.org.uk/search.php#query=a ... ceb8e2c7c5. The original query found Hieracium schmidtii agg. in NJ10, but ignored Hieracium schmidtii s.s. in NJ10 and NJ11. The NJ11 record has the wrong hectad, and I will change. It also missed off Ranunculus omiophyllus in NJ65, but found the record in NJ56. Technically the latter record is not a singleton.

Hope that helps. This new addition to the my county page is very useful.

Andy.
AndyAmphlett
 
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 9:32 am
name: Andy Amphlett


Return to Bugs and suggestions

cron