search

gbif / portal-feedback

User feedback for the GBIF API, website and published data. You can ask questions here. 🗨❓
28 stars 16 forks source link

Deleted dataset. #5260

Open gbif-portal opened 3 months ago

gbif-portal commented 3 months ago

Deleted dataset.

Looks like this dataset was deleted March 18, 2024 but there is no replacement. Does the pipeline processing catch instances like this & create an issue for Secretariat staff to follow-up? Or, does it get silently flushed from the index?

Github user: @dshorthouse User: See in registry - Send email System: Chrome 123.0.0 / Mac OS X 10.15.7 Referer: https://www.gbif.org/dataset/c5a7ace8-726a-42e7-9d2f-85952e32b969 Window size: width 1639 - height 872 API log&_a=(columns:!(_source),filters:!(),index:'3390a910-fcda-11ea-a9ab-4375f2a9d11c',interval:auto,query:(language:kuery,query:''),sort:!())) Site log&_a=(columns:!(_source),filters:!(),index:'5c73f360-fce3-11ea-a9ab-4375f2a9d11c',interval:auto,query:(language:kuery,query:''),sort:!())) System health at time of feedback: OPERATIONAL

ManonGros commented 3 months ago

I contacted the publisher.

wkmor1 commented 3 months ago

Hey Marie,

Yeah I have been cleaning up old datasets from old forgotten IPTs and other installation and removing ones that have been duplicated when we started live updating datasets from FinBIF directly. Unfortunately no one knew/remembered that these data existed.

That one is a duplicate of https://www.gbif.org/dataset/3fa6a2b8-70d5-487b-b285-a7d0b4f31816

Other old duplicates that I have removed are

https://www.gbif.org/dataset/e5973baa-4aa6-4f78-acf5-4f617423fce4 dup of https://www.gbif.org/dataset/1d53debb-2c85-4fb2-a799-f54721325543 https://www.gbif.org/dataset/ed52aaa1-5fa5-417d-815a-851a5731dcf0 dup of https://www.gbif.org/dataset/1d53debb-2c85-4fb2-a799-f54721325543 https://www.gbif.org/dataset/e2032ac4-b998-47ea-a30a-2608e6a7f7f5 dup of https://www.gbif.org/dataset/f9085358-5e9e-4571-aa64-f2f1074e5b17 https://www.gbif.org/dataset/b159e5c0-075f-425b-b543-c02a44ece750 dup of https://www.gbif.org/dataset/2a1034af-7400-4e8c-b21b-3837926a9682 https://www.gbif.org/dataset/b159e5c0-075f-425b-b543-c02a44ece750 dup of https://www.gbif.org/dataset/fb7078b9-63e4-41c1-8496-10f67ea1e1b9 https://www.gbif.org/dataset/2921929f-1f8c-429e-8be9-ff47bc581078 dup of https://www.gbif.org/dataset/152b320f-7845-44c5-b669-df5f190c07ad https://www.gbif.org/dataset/7a8be2e6-349b-4ac8-8c58-fde5c046142d dup of https://www.gbif.org/dataset/1a1675be-791f-4a3e-a614-94117f36ae96 https://www.gbif.org/dataset/9d8ff248-3f6d-4180-a7f5-3570c489cf72 dup of https://www.gbif.org/dataset/23acc755-a8a6-4cf8-bed0-83d30863acea https://www.gbif.org/dataset/4b5ccd8b-c137-4844-8e87-d681f48fc474 dup of https://www.gbif.org/dataset/0ab7fc3f-f956-4486-8f7d-a5009b05efdb https://www.gbif.org/dataset/68a8dad9-2229-4775-90d3-b90b6927e406 dup of https://www.gbif.org/dataset/714e4657-ea98-4834-8ce5-a2e36e6b51b6 https://www.gbif.org/dataset/4ee3ee64-8ca4-4d5e-871e-09f437ae86df dup of https://www.gbif.org/dataset/0ab7fc3f-f956-4486-8f7d-a5009b05efdb https://www.gbif.org/dataset/135fe78c-6fbb-4586-8d43-214b503dc593 dup of https://www.gbif.org/dataset/711eec60-9b0d-42bc-9610-56604e0d7bd8 https://www.gbif.org/dataset/85275ce6-f762-11e1-a439-00145eb45e9a dup of https://www.gbif.org/dataset/acf24ccc-cea1-4f90-aa1b-4089d80fa856

I realise in hindsight that I should have used the "replaced by" field in the registry but I missed that at the time.

Cheers,

Will

ManonGros commented 2 months ago

Thanks @wkmor1 ! Sorry for the delayed answer. Do you know if the occurrenceIDs remain the same from one dataset to another? (I am thinking that maybe I could keep the occurrence URLs if this is the case)

wkmor1 commented 2 months ago

Hey @ManonGros. It may be possible to link (some of) the new occurrence IDs to the old catalogNumbers with a bit of effort. But not sure if it is worth it? The new datasets have been up for some time as I hadn't noticed that the old datasets existed. So dropping new gbif occurrence urls for the old ones could also cause issues with linking to cited data? Not sure if just archiving with a "replaced by" flag is a the best compromise?