New filter functionality

[jeremyshelton]

@timlinux @dimasciput Below are the main filter functionality enhancements envisaged for the next FBIS release, as discussed at previous meetings.

For now, let’s concentrate on getting the existing Filter tickets (e.g. the CBAs etc) sorted before we start on any new functionality, but it would be good to start thinking about these features:

Filter interactions Create functionality for filter interactions. E.g. Spatial Filter X Temporal Filter X Conservation Status X Ecological Category. This will allow the user to harness the full power of the system, allowing for full customisation when filtering for subsets of data

Site ranking Create a filter called ‘Sites’ which allows the user to filter by sites which have the most number of records over time. This may need to be done separately for each module? The user could then use this feature in conjunction with the existing filters to, for example, hone in on sites in Protected Areas with Endangered taxa, and then ranked by sites with the richest data histories (most number of records).

@helendallas @toniolsen do you guys have anything to add to these filter additions at this stage?

[timlinux]

@jeremyshelton do you want to do site ranking on the record counts are on the unfiltered numbers. It gets a bit more complex if we are trying to ranks sites with other filters in place. Can we chat about this a bit and get a better understanding of what is critical? @dimasciput and I are worried about the complexity and performance issues relating to this.

[jeremyshelton]

@timlinux OK let's chat about this on Monday. The important think would be to allow the user to easily identify sites with the most records. Filtering these by other layers (e.g. protected areas) would be nice, but not essential. @dimasciput

[dimasciput]

@jeremyshelton @timlinux if the objective is just to identify sites with the most record, should I just add an option for user to sort the sites result by occurrences? No need new filter.

[dimasciput]

Something like this

[jeremyshelton]

@dimasciput yes, good thinking - that would let the user apply filters and then rank sites by occurrences, which is great!

That would work well when the user is interested in a specific taxon like Chimarra, but what about if they want to find the site with the most records for all fish or all invertebrates? ...what we really want it for the user to easily be able to identify which sites have been sampled (visited) the most depending on their module/taxon/filters of interest. Thoughts?

[jeremyshelton]

@helendallas on the topic of site visits vs occurrence records: users may want to find sites that were visited the most (as apposed to the most occurrences?) Do/can we use the currency of 'site visits' to find sites with the richest backdrops? (Because if we just filter by occurrences it can be misleading when looking for sites with the richest data histories (EG lots of invertebrate occurrences all caught on the same trip))

[jeremyshelton]

@helendallas any thoughts on this? At the moment the user has the option to filter by occurrences, but not 'site visits'?

[dimasciput]

Just for reminder, we only have site visit for SASS records, so if you want to implement sort by site visit, I have to change the existing architecture and have to do data migration. Maybe keep it for version 4?

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 at 12.34 jeremyshelton notifications@github.com wrote:

@helendallas https://github.com/helendallas any thoughts on this? At the moment the user has the option to filter by occurrences, but not 'site visits'? [image: Screenshot 2019-11-15 at 07 32 30] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/44292029/68919326-45ff8680-077a-11ea-92ba-109ae5135d6f.png

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/kartoza/django-bims/issues/1523?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAPDJMP3OXJHQSWYI33AHGDQTYYFFA5CNFSM4IJ6I7N2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEEELP6Q#issuecomment-554219514, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAPDJMOWG45MX2KDAAYPDH3QTYYFFANCNFSM4IJ6I7NQ .

-- Regards, Dimas Tri Ciputra

[jeremyshelton]

Thanks @dimasciput for clarifying this. I have made a note to discuss on Tuesday 👍 @timlinux

[helendallas]

@jeremyshelton Has this been resolved as per your ticket. If yes, please close the ticket.

[jeremyshelton]

@helendallas this has been partially addressed, in that a 'filter by occurrances' functionality has been added, which is very useful. It would also be great to filter by 'site visits', so the user can see ho many times the site was sampled. You will see in the above thread that I asked for your input on this? Thoughts?

[helendallas]

@jeremyshelton @dimasciput I agree to allow users to be able to see the number of times a site has been sampled, it would be good to have site visits as one of our currencies. Dimas suggested doing for version 4? Is this feasible?

[dimasciput]

@helendallas @jeremyshelton I'm very sorry, this feature is too complicated to implement now and will create a lot of issues in the future if I can't spent a lot of time thinking and working on it, can we move this to RBIS?

[dimasciput]

@helendallas this should be feasible in the latest version, because we have site visit for all occurrences now. I will do this on RBIS instead I think.

[helendallas]

@dimasciput Thanks for the site visit addition.

Outstanding from this ticket is the

Filter interactions Create functionality for filter interactions. E.g. Spatial Filter X Temporal Filter X Conservation Status X Ecological Category. This will allow the user to harness the full power of the system, allowing for full customisation when filtering for subsets of data