592 mil + 56 mil is far from 703 mil. This I assume is the occurrences without date at all. But wouldn't it be practical to have them searchable as well?
I guess one could argue, that if you want a date you set a filter. And if you are a publisher you can look at your own data. Whereas the other issues has to do with our processing. But then again we add no_taxon_match when no taxon is provided. and flag occurrences without coordinates. And our issue filters are targeting the publishers in the first place.
Search for occurrences without date isn't an option
total 703,245,140
592,565,753 occ before 2020 (zero invalid and zero unlikely)
56,748,687 recorded date invalid or unlikely or mismatch (8.6 mil mismatch duplicates with before 2020 ignored)
592 mil + 56 mil is far from 703 mil. This I assume is the occurrences without date at all. But wouldn't it be practical to have them searchable as well?
I guess one could argue, that if you want a date you set a filter. And if you are a publisher you can look at your own data. Whereas the other issues has to do with our processing. But then again we add no_taxon_match when no taxon is provided. and flag occurrences without coordinates. And our issue filters are targeting the publishers in the first place.
fbitem-4cd51ab3c35a7b3305c9ec1422d26bc93a21a482 Reported by: @MortenHofft System: Chrome 55.0.2883 / Mac OS X 10.10.5 Referer: https://demo.gbif.org/occurrence/search?issue=RECORDED_DATE_INVALID&issue=RECORDED_DATE_UNLIKELY&issue=RECORDED_DATE_MISMATCH