johnvanbreda
commented
4 years ago Although we can continue to extend the filtering system to support more and more scenarios, it might be a good time to take a step back and look at the wider picture. If we just add a new option to the filter interface to exclude certain boundaries it would make the UI more complicated. Also are there other scenarios we might want to consider, e.g. a national mammal recorder who does everything except the bats in Dorset which are covered by a local recorder? Or, a broader taxonomic group excluding a sub-group?
One thought might be an extra JSON field where a custom Elasticseach Query DSL statement could be saved with the filter. We'd only enable this on the admin UI of course and it would only apply to ES filters. Not sure this is the ideal solution but it would give massive flexibility without too much coding. We could then provide a couple of templates covering different scenarios.
Raised by two active verifiers. https://www.brc.ac.uk/irecord/node/8004#new
"On another perhaps more important note, as a national organiser I am finding it increasingly hard when using bulk verification to cater to VC recorders who wish to verify all their own data. At the moment the only way I can avoid records from a particular VC is to check through them manually. It would be really helpful if the filtering could be widened to include a way of excluding one or more Vice Counties, so I do not verfiy these records accidentally."