Issue 11748

Show "1.3million species, plus 2million synonyms and 700k species under review by CoL" on species search home

Reporter: mdoering
Assignee: mdoering
Type: Improvement
Summary: Show "1.3million species, plus 2million synonyms and 700k species under review by CoL" on species search home
Priority: Major
Resolution: Fixed
Status: Closed
Created: 2012-08-29 14:51:14.859
Updated: 2013-08-29 14:45:46.831
Resolved: 2012-12-17 16:36:51.216
Description: To please Donald who gets irritated by calling nub usage a species when its not verified by the CoL.

To show this we need 3 numbers:
1) number of accepted species in CoL
2) number of all nub synonyms for species
3) number of accepted species in nub which are not in CoL

#2 is not readily available and we would need to store a new precalculated metric for the species synonyms]]>

Attachment Screen Shot 2012-12-11 at 17.17.42.png

Created: 2012-08-29 14:52:41.042
Updated: 2012-08-29 14:52:41.042
What about the existing metrics for total usages, total infraspecific and common names?
Would be quite a limitation only show number of species when you can search in fact much more

Comment: done using existing col and nub metrics, see attachment. But the long text doesn't look right to me - commit anyway?
Created: 2012-12-11 17:18:49.477
Updated: 2012-12-11 17:19:14.706

Comment: Why not put them in the bit underneath rather than the top?
Created: 2012-12-12 15:02:04.01
Updated: 2012-12-12 15:02:04.01

Created: 2012-12-12 15:03:31.13
Updated: 2012-12-12 15:03:31.13

Search 1.3million species*
{search box}

1.3m Species         |    300k infraspecies    |   1.7m common names
(+ 70k under review
and 400k synonyms)


Comment: thought about that initially, but didnt know what to link these to. We cant search on just the col based nub species
Created: 2012-12-12 15:06:54.538
Updated: 2012-12-12 15:06:54.538

Created: 2012-12-13 18:03:31.635
Updated: 2012-12-13 18:03:31.635
The more I think about this, the less I like the proposal to differentiate between catalogue of life species and others. We don't do his anywhere else and there is no way to search on this distinction - both species under review and col based ones are the same internally and all across the portal. If we really need to show this distinction we should probably clearly classify our species and allow searches and species pages to state that. Maybe even include this in occurrence searches and maps.

But honestly I do not think this is a good idea. Its just causing confusion in my mind.